Talk:Chevrolet Corvette/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Article feels POV

The claim that the Corvette is widely regarded as "America's Sports Car" should be sourced. The part that heralds the affordability compared to other sports cars feels POV. Mister Tog 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is poorly structured and written

I'm not a particularly skilled writer nor am I an expert on the Corvette. However, I know enough to definitively state this article is problematic.

“The Chevrolet Corvette is a sports car that has been manufactured by Chevrolet since 1953.”

Manufactured by Chevrolet or General Motors?

“It is built today exclusively at a General Motors assembly plant in Bowling Green, Kentucky, U.S.A.. “

The first two sentenced should be combined. How about saying manufactured by GM, but branded as Chevrolet?

“It was the first all-American sports car built by an American car manufacturer. The National Corvette Museum is also located in Bowling Green, Kentucky.”


“For more than 50 years, Corvettes have combined very powerful engines and affordability, especially when compared with more prestigious marques of similar performance.”

That’s the one sentence a complete Corvette ignorant needs to know? This is an opinion, espeacially what is 'prestigious'. Many would argue, in fact I would, that the Camaro combines powerful engines with affordability compared to the Corvette. The Corvette's biggest rival in the 1960s, the Shelby Cobra used a similar type engine. This sentence should state something to the effect that GM designed the Corvette to compete with European sports cars.

“Older generations of the Corvette have been criticized for being crude and lacking in refinement by European sports car standards, and their on-limit handling is a divisive issue garnering both praise and reproach.[1] “

It is true early generations of the Corvette were not good handling cars compared to european sports cars. It might be good to state something to the effect, "Early generations of Corvettes emphasised straight line performance and lacked suspension designed needed for performance handling on road course without modification to the suspension." Something similar needs to be said for the brakes. However, this shouldn't be in the intro. In the into of Porsche article I don’t hear criticism of its rear engine design and weight distribution. It's also unfair to make such a blanket statement, because all sports car of the generation of Corvettes in question required modifiction for safe-competative driving on a road course, espeacially the brakes and tires. The same is largely true with modern sports cars. BTW, anyone driving near the cars limit on the street is a madman. “Recent generations of the Corvette, however, are widely seen as being much improved in these areas.[2]” Save this for a criticism section.

“Corvettes tend to emphasize simplicity over technical complexity. Where nearly all competing marques rely on smaller displacement, more complex and faster-revving engines, the Corvette uses a simpler overhead valve (OHV) design coupled with a larger displacement to make up for the lower rev limit pushrods impose.”

Again this entire paragraph is filled with opinion and criticism that doesn’t belong in an intro. Can you cite a Corvette engineer stating the Corvette’s design emphasizes technical simplicity? It’s an opinion and a generalization to state large displacement OHV engines are less complex compared to OHC smaller displacement engines. Faster-revving as an advantage is irrelevant and a generalization. From a performance perspective, most racing drivers prefer a torquey slow revving engine over a peaky high and fast revving engine because it’s generally easier to get maximum performance from the engine. For example, the rev restricted V10 powered 2006 Toro Roso F1 cars had an advantage over their smaller displacement faster and higher revving V8 counter parts. At Le Mans in 2004 the C5-R were forced to use intake restriction to make the faster revving Ferrari V12s more competitive. In 2006 Audi replaced its fast high revving sports car prototype; the R8 with the diesel powered R10 and saw no disadvantage, if anything the R10 was an advantage.

“The result is usually cheaper to manufacture and maintain.”

True. It’s also relevant to state the ‘simple’ the modren Corvette engine has far superior fuel economy over its ‘high-tech’ counter-parts.

“Another example of this philosophy is the continued use of transverse leaf springs in the suspension. This is judged as a lack of sophistication by some automotive purists, and has fueled the aforementioned "lack of refinement" argument.”

Criticism section. The transverse composite leaf spring does use fewer parts over a coil over set-up, just like the OHV compared to OHC. It’s fair to point out F1 cars have used leaf spring.

POV section

This MUST! be a European site... I've never seen sooooooo many excuses made up for Ferarri at LeMans. Why didn't you explain that Aston Martin was on it way to getting LAPPED by the C6 at Sebring until one of its 2,000 dollar Carbon-Carbon rotored brakes exploded! (this also happened to a C5-R, but it was fixed, finished the race, and the C5-R team still won) And they STILL were able to finish on the same last lap with a complete front end change had it been a 24 hour race instead of 12 the Vettes would have DEMOLISHED Aston Martin and ProDrive.

Oh yeah, you Euro's seem to think that "leaf springs" are some money saving device or something, pffff, huh, where ARE your engineering caps???

The leaf springs that are a HUGE part of the Vettes superior handling. They are transversely mounted (left to right) and that reduces sprung and unsprung weight, and lowers the center of gravity.As well as bringing weight inboard for a lower moment of enertia. They're made of a very HIGH-tech, lightweight and highly tunable,fiberglass composite.

If you wonder why the Covette team laughs and turns away when you guys say "LEAF SPRINGS haha"...


and finally! The corvette winning is NOTHING new.. In America we race all types of cars.The SCCA has had a showroom class since the early eighties.. IMHO this is the ONLY class that represents the cars you and I buy... They install a rollcage, shave the tyres and then race. The Corvettes would win and fill the podium, soooo much and soooo often that BMW and Porsche had as many as 10 FULLTIME engineers in the pits. JUST to try and figure out why the Vettes were UNBEATABLE. Well.. all the German white-coats they could find, couldnt help.LOL So the Corvettes were given their OWN series. The Corvette Challenge....20 yrs ago!

No. Its not a sports car in the Brit sense of the word ...Its America's Sports Car!

The above does not seem to be signed, so I don't know who submitted it, but it is a bit of a rant and serves no useful purpose. Whoever wrote it, could you please back it up with facts and references? I particularly find the "leaf spring" portion interesting and would like to see some references to back up the suggestions that it "reduces sprung and unsprung weight, and lowers the center of gravity.As well as bringing weight inboard for a lower moment of enertia."

As for Corvettes winning races, which international championships have they won? Nasty 12:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what "international championships" have to do with anything, but check out the C5-R and C6-R sections in the article for mention of wins at the 24 hours at Le Mans. Mrand 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

International Championships??? UH ,,, NEWS alert! Championships, that take place ONLY in Europe, are NOT "International" they are "European Championships" and they are meaningless. Your silly observation serves no purpose... but to boost your silly little ego. I said "in AMERICA"... hello??? we race ALL kinds of CARS(BMW Porsche Ferarri Lamborghini etc...) look up SCCA(Sports Car Club of America) THIS is a discussion. So,,, your pointless quips are unwelcome here .. Read BEFORE you write,son.

Firstly let me say that I am not your son and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting me by claiming such. Championships that take place in more than one country are international. Even those that only take place on one continent. European international championships are no more meaningless than American international championships (those which take place in the whole of the Americas and not just the USA). Secondly, I picked international championships as there tends to be less bias towards cars made in one geographical area. Naturally those championships that only take place in the USA will attract more input from the American teams and less from their non-American competitors. I believe that you should heed your own piece of advice about reading before writing. Who won what is not in dispute, nor is whether the Corvette has won any or not, but to suggest that "the Vettes were UNBEATABLE" is misleading, even if they were relatively dominant for a period in a particular class of little international significance. I was hoping that someone would list a few and maybe the list could be compared with those of other sportscars of similar longevity, such as the Porsche 911. I feel that the Corvette is a remarkable car both throughout its history and in its current form, but I have no illusions as to how competitive it has been in motorsports. As for suggesting that my ego has anything to do with it, please explain why. Finally, notice that I sign my comments. If they are worth writing, they are worth signing.Nasty 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong ! again I wouldnt dare consider you MY son, it was an abreviation ... lol More input ... pfffm, More Euroexcuses...pathetic. Your fooling yourself if you are dumb enough to believe that an American BMW Porsche Audi or Ferarri racing teams are any "less competitive" over here. Jees,, that is some kind of blind denial.After all WE (America) are THEIR largest markets,, AFTER ALL

Every team in 2005 that WON their class AT LeMans was an AMERCIAN racing team !!!!Look it up, JUNIOR..

AUDI,Lola,Corvette, and Porsche teams were all... YOU GUESSED it... American based AND run teams !! .LOL Sooooo get over you silly little EuroSupremecy trip and deal with it. We have a highly celebrated history of European car racing, here and it's VERY competitive. Still doesn't change the fact that Vettes dominate, in class, PERIOD. P.S. dont even get me started about Camaro Z28s and Mustangs pounding Porshes and such for a FRACTION of the operating costs, LOL signed sign

I live in Europe, but I am European in much the same way as a Cuban is American; I'm Irish. Please leave my continent of origin and residence out of it, as I have done for you. You accuse me of being in "some kind of blind denial" and yet it seems to me that you are. Since you only seem to be interested in insulting me and not in providing facts to back up your statements or having intelligent debate, I refuse to continue this debate.Nasty 10:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Is it a sports car?

Please vote (with a one-line answer, indented) on the following question:

Is this vehicle a sports car?

  1. Yes
  2. No - it's a GT car
  3. No - it's just a sporty coupe
  4. No - a dragster

--SFoskett 13:16, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes. —Morven 17:52, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. SamH 16:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, its a GT--JonGwynne 01:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. Stombs 23:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes
  • Yes its the first american sports car EvolutioniuM 00:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this has been resurrected, I'll pick "no, it's a sporty coupe". —HorsePunchKid 01:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by VetteDude (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 August 2005.
  • Yes. It was last I noticed. The first made in large numbers. There were pre-WW II American sports cars.--David R. Ingham 17:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. From a broad, simplified encyclopedia view of the world, a Corvette is a sports car in exactly the same way that a Minibus is not a sports car. There are cars that blur the lines, but that's not the case here. EricN 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)~
But the context of the question is not the "broad, simplified encyclopedia view of the world"; the listed choices make it clear that that a more technical (though perhaps jargony) description is sought. —HorsePunchKid 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. In fact, it also should be catorgorized as a supercar. NumbRemxed 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes and No. it is a sports car now but it's also a muscle car, maby even a sub exotic
The Corvette was never anything near a muscle car, nor was it ever marketed as one or built with the intent of compeating with them in sales or on track.

You lot ever heard of no original research?? Dan100 (Talk) 10:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it the first production engine with more than 1hp per cubic inch?

There is at least one example of a car which has more than 1hp per cubic inch before 1957. The Porsche 356 Carrera 1500 GS did roughly 1.2hp per cubic inch in 1955. The question really boils down to how many cars need to be made for a car to be considered a production car. Nasty 18:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ford also claims it for the 312 'bird. Trekphiler 10:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove this erroneous claim to being the first production engine with 1hp per cubic inch? It is not. So unless somebody can suggest different wording for:

The number was derated by Chevrolet's advertising agency for the 283HP/283 in³ (4.6 L) "one hp per cubic inch" slogan, making it the first production engine in history to reach 1 hp/in³

Perhaps the following would be better:

The number was derated by Chevrolet's advertising agency for the 283HP/283 in³ (4.6 L) "one hp per cubic inch" slogan, making it one of the first mass-produced engines in history to reach 1 hp/in³

Nasty 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the Corvette, but I have to agree with the above. The wording MUST change, if not go away completely. It appears that Chrysler's Hemi engine, optional on the 1956 300B, was a 354 cubic inch V8 rated at 355 horsepower. This would indicate that Chevrolet's 1957 claim as being the first with 1 HP / cubic inch was pure marketing. Mrand 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BUZZZZ! wrong! Chysler's Hemi(a stolen design from Zora Duntov's Flathead Ford conversion from 1948) was the not quite at the "1hp per cubic inch mark"... The high compression version had too few buyers to qualify.SRY Mopar fans!
(indented above comment by that this is a response to) If you think I'm a Mopar fan, you're sadly mistaken. I live and breathe the Corvette, but I can be objective about it. The comment about the design being stolen does not influence the FACT that a 10:1 head was placed on 300B's that produced 355 HP. So which part of my statement was wrong? You said the high compression version had "too few buyers." How many were sold? I read one place that they were installed by dealers rather than at the factory - if that is true, that could influence the decision about it being called a production item.Mrand 13:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
How many are needed for a unit to be considered to be production? I am quite sure that I can find 10 road-legal cars which produced more than 1hp per cubic before the Corvette. Porsche alone had at least three different road-legal models which produced roughly 1.2hp per cubic inch. Jaguar, Alfa Romeo and Ferrari all had cars which did in excess of 1hp per cubic inch before 1957.Nasty 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change as nobody has been able to verify that it was indeed the first. I'll change it back if anyone can provide a valid reference to prove that it was the first production with 1hp per cubic inch. Nasty 16:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer is a hundred units during the fifties Its like 1500 now. If low production street racers counted such as the Porches you mention,,, then 1hp per inch would go way back to the Duesenburg days in the 30s. Not to mention the THOUSANDS of hotrods on the streets in the USA during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

If 100 suffices, the type Porsche type 547 engine was produced in greater numbers than that (at least 90 550s and a good number of Porsche 356s had it too). Nasty 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

less than that... 39 models(with that engine)in 56 were made. Once again,,, the Smallblock Chevy was the first MASS PRODUCED 1 hp per cubic inch motor.

Only 39 550As had the 1500 type 547 engine. There were many 550s with the engine well beforehand. Assuming that the 39 for the 550As is correct, and the 90 for the 550s is too, that makes well in excess of 100. That is completely ignoring the number of 356s with the same engine.Nasty 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical inaccuracy in text

The following is inaccurate:

The relatively simple pushrod V8 engine is both lighter and physically smaller than the more complex arrangements, as well as cheaper to manufacture.

It is both heavier and larger than a complex inline 4 cylinder engine with VVT and DOHC and alloy block. As I do not have the figures for manufacturing either, I can not comment on that aspect, but I would be surprised if is cheaper too. Nasty 18:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the above quote is referring to inline 4 cylinder engines, but rather engines which are competitive with the Corvette in terms of power. TomTheHand 19:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Accepting that it does not refer to engines of lesser power, there are many examples of more powerful engines which are lighter, primarily due to use of complex lightweight alloys. The suggestion that by making a simple large capacity engine it will be both cheaper and lighter than a smaller capacity, but more complex engine of similar performance is incorrect. A complex alloy block engine will be more expensive but lighter and more powerful than a simple iron block engine. Nasty 10:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Corvette has an alloy block engine. I've done a bit of Googling, and while I can't find bare engine weights for a wide variety of engines, I did find that the LS6 engine weighed under 400 lbs and produces 405 hp; by comparison, the Mustang Cobra's aluminum DOHC 4.6L V8 weighed nearly 600 lbs and produced 320 hp. This information is readily available because American car manufacturers offer their engines for sale directly to the public, and it'll be more difficult to Google bare engine weights for foreign car manufacturers. If you could provide such information I'd be happy to accept it, but I was under the impression that the Corvette's engine provides exceptional power to weight. TomTheHand 12:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed that the LS6 is under 400 lbs "naked", but almost 500 lbs with A/C, power steering, etc. I'm not sure if the Ford 4.6 engine weight is with or without accessories, and I need to go to work so I can't continue to check it out. However, assuming the weight for the Ford IS with accessories, the Corvette engine is still 100 lbs lighter and makes 25% more power. TomTheHand 12:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Noble M400 uses a Ford Duratec V6 based engine which weighs 360lbs fully dressed. The Noble adds turbos, but the naked Duratec V6 with the turbos added should still weigh less than 400lbs. The Lotus Esprit Turbo V8 weighs 465lbs dressed. The BMW M3 CSL produces 360bhp from an inline 6 which I would be very surprised to find is heavier than 500lbs fully dressed. The Ferrari F50 engine weighs 432lbs, though I can't be certain that is fully dressed. I too have found it difficult to find details as to what the exact weights are of various engines, though one site has some information My figures for the Corvette engine weights (600+lbs) are out of date. As they were the basis for my argument and as I can not find sufficient information to back up my belief that the sentence is inaccurate, I withdraw my challenge. Nasty 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to add to this, a decent comparison is the L98 and LT5 offered the same year. The highly sophisticated all-aluminum LT5 weighed about 30 pounds more than the iron block/aluminum head L98. OHC engines will weigh more, all things being equal. They will also generally be taller and wider due to the bigger heads. The main "complex" alloy used in engines is aluminum. I suspect even F1 engines are made out of aluminum. There's not a lot else that's lighter that you can make an engine out of. In 1997, the Corvette got an all-aluminum pushrod motor. As an aside, I'd be skeptical of weight claims from small manufacturers who trade mostly on the image of high-tech. It's unlikely anyone will pull their Lotus or Ferrari motor and put it on a scale. But a Ford or Chevy motor is much more likely to be discovered if the manufacturer lies about weight. The LSx motors are light for their power and configuration. -Bob 11 Dec 2005

I would also like to point out that Corvettes are no longer made from fiberglass. The statement in the beginning is inaccurate. The C4 model introduced a new reaction injected molding plastic (material used to make car bumpers). All Corvettes from then on were made from this material. NumbRemxed 17:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of the text on the ZR-1 is not exactly accurate. 1991 had the significant change in the way the body looked, and had new wheels. This was the year all Corvettes got the square taillamps and rounded-out back end. In 1990, all Corvettes also had a high-mounted CHMSL. It was in 1991-95 that only the ZR-1 had it. Also, for the performance/power comparison, why not go with 1990 instead of 1995? In 1990 the car was practically the top of the heap. It made more horsepower than practically any car save the Testarossa (390hp) and Countach (low 400's). By 1995, the Viper was on the scene along with many other hi-po cars. I mean the ZR-1 is still fast 15 years later, but in 1990 it was practically unbeatable. -Bob 11 Dec 2005

One things for sure, all those Moslers, Ultimas, Monaros, Marcos, Vettes, CTS-V Caddys, owe ALOT of their great handling to the Smallblock Chevy V8's very low center of gravity!! Only a Boxter engine is lower.. which explains the break-away-rear-end style handiling those 911's have.

The 911's handling is a bit better explained by the fact that the engine is completely behind the rear axle, rather than the boxer configuration. Porsche's own 914, Boxster, and Cayman, being mid-engined cars, do not suffer from the same handling issues; nor do other modern boxer-engine cars such as the entire Subaru lineup, which uses a front-mounted H4 or H6 along with all-wheel drive. Ayocee 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes the silly rear engine placement does promote extreme over-steering tendancies. BUT its the low low low center of gravity that makes it that "all or none" kind of grip. Or, instant breakaway, without warning. This is also evident in the Porsche Cayman and Cayman S which are midengined with Boxters. Awesome handling, but tricky at the limit as well. The Subaru has a much higher placement of the engine in its chassis, than the Porsche. So the low center effect of the H4/H6 is greatly reduced.

POV? Style?

The car is widely regarded as a "poor man's supercar", although this description is intended to be complimentary. Corvettes have a long history of melding exceptional handling and brutal amounts of engine power into an affordable package that is drastically less expensive than prestiguous marques with similar abilities. This has understandably led to some scorn of the Corvette by owners of such competing marques, with most of the criticism being aimed at the Corvette's level of refinement. Older generations of the Corvette have been criticized for being brutish when compared to European sports cars, although the C5 and C6 generations seem to have silenced all but the most strident of such critics.

This whole paragraph is devoid of any useful information and should probably be deleted. I don't know much about cars, but from a style perspective, the above text is a blight on an otherwise decent article.

   * "The car is widely regarded...", by whom? References?
   * "...melding exceptional handling...", among comparable cars, is the handling of a Corvette an exception?
   * "...brutal amounts of engine power...", reads like a glossy brochure, not an encyclopedia
   * " affordable package...", to whom? This is clearly POV
   * "This has understandably led...", is not only POV, it's narration.
   * "...most of the criticism being aimed at...", who is doing the criticizing?
   * "...the C5 and C6 generations seem to have silenced all but the most strident of such critics.", is ad hominem. Categorizing 'critics' as 'strident' does nothing to invalidate any claims they make.
         Above comments were deleted from the talk page by an anonymous user... 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph has similar problems:

This lack of sophistication is sometimes viewed as a negative by extreme automotive purists, and has fueled the aforementioned "lack of refinement" argument. Regardless of the validity of such criticism, no one can deny the power, efficiency, and affordability of the design.

  • "...sometimes viewed as a negative by extreme automotive purists...", reference or delete. Claims like this need substantiation.
  • " one can deny...", This text is junk. Anything is deniable.

Lack of sophistication??? huh??

The Vette helped pioneer things like antilock brakes(since early 8os)composite materials(which the WHOLE industry uses now)Airbags,electronic ignition(GMs HEI)electronic engine management and individual coil packs, tuned port fuel injection. This is a silly uninformed world who thinks overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder on a inline engine is soooo high tech,,, BS! Actually, OHV engines apeared AFTER the Doubleoverheadcams/multivalve/supercharged, Duesenbergs from the 20s.

It's incorrect to state that merely beacuse a technology was present at some point in time, it was in high usage, or that it could not be improved from the original design or that technologies that come after it are necessarily better. While researching for a paper on automotive technology, I discovered that Fuel injection was first invented in the 1880s and many different designs were utilized through the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these designs proved to be inefficient, difficult to produce, difficult to fix, difficult to control etc (Source: Fisher, Charles H (1966). Carburetion Volume II Spark-Ignition Engines: Fuel Injection Development. London: Chapman & Hall LTD.). The carbureator is an easier design to use, but on-board computers are what made Fuel Injection shine and become better than carbed engines. Maybe an OHV engine was developed after OHC engines were in use, but that doesn't nullify the advancements or benefits that OHC engines are able to utilize, such as easier to produce cams, shorter pushrods and a few other benefits.Kakomu 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Its incorrect for YOU to assume you have the meaning of the OBVIOUSLY are NOT a car person! I mention overhead cams because it always referred to by ignorant "car" people to as "more sophisticated"and that just isnt true. The POINT is that the OHV engine was ahead of it's time then and, AS A PACKAGE(weight,weight distribution,expense to produce,small physical dimensions,power output,fuel economy per hp,driveability,etc..),it stll is today! WHO said "nullify"????

Dont use YOUR interpretation to nullify my comments..this IS a discussion. Do u have any Corvette points other than to attack others opinions? Who made you the selfapointed opinion POLICE?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm loathe to just start deleting from an article I know little about. Perhaps somebody with a little car knowledge could tidy this up? EricN 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I copy-edited the article a while back[1], and that paragraph really rubbed me the wrong way, too. I didn't attempt to rewrite it, though, since—although it does read like a sales brochure—it does capture my perception of the car reasonably well. I don't think the entire paragraph can just be simply deleted, in any case. For example, the notion of affordability, while naturally POV (as you point out), is a very important aspect of the car's place in the market and in automotive history. I don't have the time just this minute to look at all of the specific problems you enumerated, but at a glance, I would say that a good first step would be to tone down some of the wording ("brutal" and such). —HorsePunchKid 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made a number of improvements to this area to make it read a little more NPOV and such, but 67HEAVEN reverted all my changes. I have restored the changes and asked him/her to comment on the changes being made before reverting them again. The changes were: "Corvettes have a long history of melding exceptional handling and brutal amounts of engine power into an affordable package that is drastically less expensive than prestiguous marques with similar abilities. This has understandably led to some scorn of the Corvette by owners of such competing marques, with most of the criticism being aimed at the Corvette's level of refinement. Older generations of the Corvette have been criticized for being brutish when compared to European sports cars, although the C5 and C6 generations seem to have silenced all but the most strident of such critics." to "Corvettes have a long history of melding brutal amounts of engine power into a package that is affordable when compared with more prestiguous marques of similar abilities. There has been some criticism of the Corvette, with much of the criticism being aimed at the Corvette's comparative low level of refinement. Older generations of the Corvette have been criticized for being brutish when compared to European sports cars, although the C5 and C6 generations have reduced the level of criticism." This change reflects that historically much criticism of the Corvette has been due to its handling and that the handling was most definately not "exceptional" in a good sense. Similarly, the Corvette is not seen as a marque without prestige. I have also change the language to be a little more like an encyclopedia should have (replace "drastically less expensive than" with "affordable when compared with"). I have dropped "Regardless of the validity of such criticism, no one can deny the power, efficiency, and affordability of the design." as correctly pointed out above, it is junk.Nasty 10:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Only euros dont like the Corvettes handling, cause they can't handle the throttle controlled rear end steer.All euro cars were so underpowered (till the late 70s)that they had to rely on exotic metals, stipped interiors and no accesories(AC PW steering) to save every last ounce of weight for those anemic little engines to have any thrust. The constant tuning of the engine was rediculous jus to hold peak power.Engine life was a about half of a typical Vette V8.rebuilds were comonplace in the Eurosports car camps . Europes finest was making their name in the days of GM's selfimposed BAN on racing. So the Vette only had a FRACTION of the racing developement support it needed to realy dominate.( it still took millions of FOrd dollars and AC and Carrol Shelby to finaly beat even ,more millions had already been spent by Ferarri in their 20 year headstart by the time Ford and Shelby got there..LOL !!) Now they have that MUCH needed factory support and Corvette Racing's long list of victories reflect this. Regardless,, people who had the skill to master the V8's massive torque loads to the IRS's LSD were extremely fast in a race prepped vette, even in the 70s.

Merge 2006 Z06 into Chevrolet Corvette article?

Yes, it is a variant of an established vehicle and who would care about the 2006 article when it is 2007? Wikipedia is full of..cobwebs, let's not contribute more. However, the 2006 article reads like pure marketing gloss, and would need major surgery before parts of it would be suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia --Sirimiri 04:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Credit where it's due?

Myron Scott named her? I've always thought it was H. J. Earl... Also, not so slight Zora, I'd give cred to the app of Iacocca's T-bird as a prod to GM keeping the 'vette in production... And (while I can't cite the source) the 283 wasn't first 1hp/ci engine, tho 'vette propaganda has it so... Trekphiler 09:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy?

5 GS left? I was under the impression only 4 gennie GSs were ever built... Trekphiler 09:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ZR-1 Statistics

I deleted this:

"According to contemporary data, 1993 to 1995 models with the 405 Horsepower LT5 run 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and are capable a top speed of slightly under 180 miles per hour. The following data is for comparison purposes:
  • 1995 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 - 4.5 seconds
  • 1991 Porsche 911 (964) Turbo 3.3 - 4.7 seconds
  • 1992 Porsche 911 (964) Turbo 3.6 - 4.4 seconds
  • 1995 Porsche 911 (993) - 4.7 seconds
  • 1995 Porsche 911 Turbo (993) - 3.9 seconds
  • 1997 Porsche 911 Turbo S (993) - 3.7 seconds
  • 2004 Chevrolet Corvette - 4.8 seconds
  • 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (385 horsepower) - 4.3 seconds
  • 2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (405 horsepower - 4.1 seconds
  • 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (505 horsepower) - 3.8 seconds
  • 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe (510 horsepower) - 4.2 seconds
"As is illustrated here, the ZR-1 was very fast, it was slightly quicker to 60 miles per hour than the 1991 911 Turbo, only 4 years it's elder and a car that had been both among the world's fastest cars at it's debut and had been more expensive than the 1995 ZR-1. Although the ZR-1 would have struggled somewhat to match these vehicles on a track, contemporary road tests indicated that the ZR-1 was more than capable of holding it's own, and often won points for it's lower price and slightly less demanding demeanor at the limit. It wasn't until the debut of the C5 platform Z06 that Chevrolet had another version of the Corvette capable of matching the ZR-1's performance, albeit it at a base price of almost $52,000 before sales tax."

Front Heavy Because of the Supercharger?

The article claims that the 2009 ZR1 is heavier in the front because of a supercharger. This makes little sense to me, as the main reason for using the supercharger instead of a larger displacement engine is to reduce weight. Do we have a source that sites the supercharger as the real reason for the front heavy weight distribution? RickO5 (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You oughtta be in pictures

I stumbled across the Dutch & German editions of this article, & they've both got better pictures! I lifted these from the Polish.

1965 Chevrolet Corvette
1965 Chevrolet Corvette

The '60 is from German:

Corvette 1958-1960 Corvette C1

Agreed, they are nice pictures but the 1958 has non-factory wire wheels and is, therefore, an inaccurate representation. Stardust39 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

USS L88?

If anybody cares, in '67, there were just 20 L88s built... Trekphiler 10:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Leaf springs

I've moved the leaf springs section to a separate article because it hurt my eyes. I've also cleaned and sectioned it a bit but there's still a lot of work. Someone who knows about these things could write a little bit concerning leaf springs in the section here. The main part should be in its own article though. Keep in mind that the article is already very long, maybe some other sections could be moved to their own article. Piet 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for detailed Corvette info

If you want to use my information on the 5th generation Corvette (1997-2004), you're welcome to use whatever information you want.

Regarding SAE Gross power ratings for 1967-1970 corvettes

In the late 1960s and early 1970s the American government began to take a keen interest in the notorious massive-displacement, extremely high output V8 engines that GM, Ford and Chrysler were producing in very high numbers. Specifically the Ford Big-Block, GM Big-Block and Chrysler Hemi engines were infamous for putting out obscene amounts of horsepower and torque, as well as obscene amounts of pollution. Between 1967 and 1970 emissions regulations primarily targeted the largest and most powerful of these engines, mainly those displacing approximately or over 400 cubic inches. As mentioned in the C3 section, GM used SAE Gross measurments for horsepower and torque. The SAE Net measurements were far more accurate and more accurately measured the declining power levels that resulted from harsher regulations as well the usage of unleaded fuel. Underrating or overrating power ratings happens frequently in the automotive industry, though more specific SAE measurement standards have curbed this over the years. In those years however the inaccuracy of SAE Gross ratings made it childs play for automakers to claim that their engines generated a significant amount more or less output than they actually did. I mention this because it is simply not true that the most famous of the muscle-car era corvette engines, the optional 427 cubic inch L88 Big Block V8 that made its way into less than 20 Corvettes in 1967 and less than 200 each year in 1968 and 1969, was offically rated by GM at 400 horsepower (SAE Gross measurement). Howerver when put to the dyno, this engine was obviously nowhere near 400 horsepower. Information from the National Corvette Museum shows that GM was obviously underrating the engine to avoid the unwanted attention from the "smog-police". On the timeline shown on the museums websiteit mentions that Chevrolet "quietly releases the L88 engine option for the corvette. The 427 cubic inch engine delivers 500 hp with open exhausts, and features a 12.5:1 compression ratio". To say that replacing the stock exhaust manifolds with a set of "headers" and removing the mufflers would add 100 horsepower to any engine is a joke. The 427 L88 is an icon in corvette history and deserves to be recognized as the performer it really was, not understated or, even worse in my opinion, ridiculously overrated as it is in a seperate section (560 horsepower in stock configuration is simply not true). There were many configurations of the 427 sold between 1967 and 1970, all representing the pinnacle of the corvette in the musclecar era before the dismal years of the mid 1970s, none of which should be misrepresented.

     This paragraph is wrong in a number of minor points.  The L88 made its way into exactly 20 1967 Corvettes, not "less than 20".  The
L88 was not rated at 400HP, it was rated at 430HP or precisely 5 less than the L71 which was rated at 435HP.  This was not done for
the "smog Police" but was done to prevent unknowing customers from purchasing a race engine who would otherwise have purchased the most
powerful engine on the order list.

2003 ACO rule changes were not Corvette specific

The line "In 2003, additional restrictions were placed on the big 7 liter C-5R engines by the ACO in an attempt to slow the cars." suggests that the rule changes were Corvette specific, which is rubbish, they were applied to all cars dropping the maximum power for all of them by 10%. I have changes this to "In 2003, additional restrictions were placed on all competitors, reducing power by 10% in an attempt to slow the cars."Nasty 10:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Generation details need to be removed from main article

Sfoskett split out a section for each generation, but it appears that the content that got moved never got removed from the main article and replaced with a summary. As it stands right now, there are two main sources of information for each generation: one in a stand alone article, and one in the main (combined) article. Each of these are being edited and are morphing separately. Does someone have the time to do a quick paragraph or two summary of each generation and delete the remainder (so that the details will be in the stand-alone articles)? Mrand 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarly priced cars are faster on Nürburgring ?

"In the summer of 2005, GM and Corvette Racing driver Jan Magnussen brought the new Z06 to the Nürburgring in Germany. Magnussen drove the Z06 to a time of 7:42.99, only cars many hundreds of thousands of dollars more have posted faster numbers." This is just not true. Firstly, there are cars which would be of similar price which are faster (eg Radical SR3 Turbo does it in 7:19).Nasty 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Radical is not a street car, so I think the comparison is unfair. You might as well compare the Corvette to a sport bike. Though "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is probably an exaggeration, I'm looking for figures and I can't see any similarly priced cars matching the Z06. 7:42.99 is faster than a Murcielago. The 997 Carrera S is a good 15 seconds behind, and the 997 GT3 apparently managed 7:47 during development and Porsche hopes to get it down to 7:42-7:45 before production... for over 60% more money. TomTheHand 12:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The Radical is a road-car. It is road legal and in production and therefore as much a road-car/"street car" as the Corvette. Radical were also very careful to point out that the car was in a road-legal guise when they tested it (it didn't have racing tyres or such). Actually on that point, can you point me at a reference which shows which tyres were used and whether they were road-legal for the country in which the test took place (Germany)? Nasty 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked the Radical must go through the Single Vehicle Approval process to become road legal, the same process used for kit cars and such. It obeys neither emissions nor crash test standards, and so I believe a strong case can be made that it is not a road car in the sense of a Corvette. TomTheHand 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Having to undergo the SVA does not make the car any less of a road-car. I would say that a strong case can be made in either direction, but it can be reasonably argued that the Corvette's claim does not stand. I have no problem with the wording being changed to something like the following:

"In the summer of 2005, GM and Corvette Racing driver Jan Magnussen brought the new Z06 to the Nürburgring in Germany. Magnussen drove the Z06 to a time of 7:42.99. Only a few street cars, some many hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive than the Z06, have posted faster times."

This does not reduce the magnitude of the achievement and yet makes it less open to counter-claims. BTW, I have seen many references to this achievement, but nothing which gives proper details, such as changes to the car compared with standard showroom condition and tyres used for the lap.
I believe having to undergo the SVA most certainly does make the car less of a road-car. It does not pass crash tests, does not have an emissions-legal engine, does not even have a roof or trunk. It is a race car that can be approved for road use in some locations. It is a fine accomplishment and the power per liter is amazing but it is not a street car.
I stand by the position that no car of the same price matches the Corvette's performance on Nürburgring. "Hundreds of thousands of dollars" is an exaggeration and should not be used, in my opinion, but the Corvette does provide the best performance per dollar on Nürburgring and this should be indicated. It's not a matter of "only a few" being better; no real road car beats the Corvette on Nürburgring for a similar price. TomTheHand 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the history of the car, many have not had to undergo any form of crash worthiness tests and had no emissions regulations imposed on them and yet they were real road cars. Just because something has to pass these tests does not make it any more a road car than another which does not. If a car is road legal in a country, it is a road car (street car if you wish) in that country. The Radical is very much a race car, but it is road legal and therefore a road car too. There have been many homologation specials throughout history and they have been both race and road cars too. As for having a trunk/boot, I believe that the Corvette lacked one for a significant length of time, but I don't hear anyone claiming that it was not a road car at those times. As for providing the best performance per dollar on the Nurburgring, I don't know of any official measure, if you want to use something like (average speed)/cost, I'm sure that there are cars which are much better. The fact is that the claim can be reasonably challenged and therefore it can't stand without some form of modification or qualification (even if only changing to state that of type-approved cars, the only ones that are quicker are much more expensive).Nasty 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Again I must disagree with you. Yes, there was a time when cars did not have to care about safety and emissions, and yes, they were road cars back then. This is 2006, and cars have to obey safety and emissions standards for road use. Radicals can be, on a one-off basis, declared exceptions to the rules road cars must obey. That does not make them road cars, it makes them race cars which have been given case-by-case exceptions to be driven on the street.
They are not exempt from the rules that road cars must obey. They are exempt from certain rules that type-approved cars must satisfy, but none the less, they are road cars and obey all the rules that road cars must, otherwise they could not be classified as read legal. Nasty 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
They are exempt from crash testing and face relaxed emissions testing. They are therefore not held to the same standards as road cars. They are classified as road legal in some markets which allow relaxed standards for kit cars and extremely limited production vehicles.
The performance-per-dollar thing was a silly statement for me to make and I didn't really think it through. No need to develop an equation to calculate such a thing. However, I don't believe the claim can be reasonably challenged by any real street car and I'm willing to accept counter-examples but not SVA racecars that cost twice as much. TomTheHand 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are cheaper than the Z06 is in England and most likely much cheaper than the Z06 is in Ireland. Just because the car has been SVA'd does not mean that it is not a road car. Even if it suits certain marketing departments to think so. Nasty 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A Radical SR3 Turbo, the car you brought up, of which only 25 were made, cost 41,000 pounds PLUS VAT, or over $90,000, in its home market. A Corvette Z06 in its home market costs somewhere in the vicinity of $66,000. I regard that as a different price range entirely, comparing home markets to home markets; I believe it's silly to compare the home market cost of one to the price of another outside its market of ready availability.
If a car cannot be made street legal except by a one-off, lenient process, it is not a road car. TomTheHand 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to approach this again having cooled off for a day. First of all, I want to apologize for getting so fired up. I tend to get pretty into these Wikipedia debates. I have actually had this same debate before on List of automotive superlatives. A user wanted the Radical SR3 on the list as the car with the highest specific output and there was a huge debate over whether the fact that the Radical could be SVA approved made it eligible for the list, which was intended for street-legal production cars. Something similar occurred with the same user and the Ultima GTR, which has put out some amazing numbers for 0-60, roadholding, and 0-100-0, but which is another SVA vehicle.

But I digress. I think there's room for compromise. I feel that the Radical is not a road car and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be convinced otherwise, so as far as I'm concerned there is no car less expensive than the Corvette that is faster around the Nürburgring. You feel that the possibility of SVA approval makes the Radical a road car, and therefore to you my statement is obviously untrue.

So here's my proposal. Can we work up a paragraph that mentions the Corvette's performance on the Nürburgring, acknowledges the way it matches many more expensive cars, but does not say one way or the other whether a car can go faster for cheaper? Your proposal above implies that only some of the sports cars that beat the new Z06 are hundreds of thousands of dollars more expensive, which I have a problem with. Could we state that the Corvette performs similarly to supercars on the Nürburgring, but leave off whether or not any cheaper cars beat it? Or would you feel that omission is too deceptive? TomTheHand 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To me that sounds deceptive. Now the Radical is considered a road car by some however going through a SVA however DOES NOT make a non Road car into a road car, I think we're getting "road car" confused with "street legal" aka allowed to be driven around, which something any car can do. From my understanding a road car is something designed to be legal on the street with out any changes and mass produced. I think if we can ignore the Radical if we talk about Road Cars.--Kinglink 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that again we have a problem caused more by language and culture than anything else. A significant enough proportion of cars in the UK (and Ireland) undergo SVA approval as it is often needed for importing cars from Japan (or outside the EU). This means that it is probably more common to find a quite-ordinary car which has been SVA'd. Similarly, the MOT and NCT tests are also applicable here to both types of cars, so they have certain standards to which they must adhere. There are certain exceptions (enforced emissions regulations are those for cars with the same age engine as is in the SVA'd vehicle). Therefore, it is not a big deal for me (or others I know) to consider a Radical as a road car, which we would see as being the same as road-legal. I guess that you probably view road car/street car as being the same as type-approved car.
There is one final thing to note, if one draws the line between road car and road legal car based on some practicallity argument, one is left with using a very subjective measure. I know enough people that would consider the Corvette completely impractical as a form of transport and would feel that its only purpose is as a 'toy', a car more suited to tracks and not at all suited to real roads. Nasty 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Engines which are approved to a standard like Euro IV undergo much more extensive emissions testing than SVA and MOT. There is much more to emissions than a sniffer for HC and CO. A vehicle that has just been SVA approved has not faced nearly the amount of testing and scrutiny as a normal road car. Dropping a motorcycle engine into a four-wheel chassis and adding "road-legal lighting, fuel injection, hand brake system, horn, silencer with catalytic converter, mirrors, reflectors and bodywork trim" does not suddenly a road car make, but that is all that is required to produce an SVA-approved vehicle.
Again, I think this comes down to what we classify as a road car.Nasty 12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of practicality, the Corvette is as practical as any other two-seat car, and I'm surprised that you're putting its practicality on par with the Radical. A Corvette convertible has more cargo room than a Miata, Z4, Boxster, 911, or TT and delivers similar gas mileage. Yes, many people consider the Corvette impractical as a form of transport: those people are called parents.
I never said that the Corvette is particularly impractical compared with the above, though it probably is for Irish roads. I was pointing out that the Corvette is not a particularly practical car and nor is the Radical and that some might not view the Corvette as much more practical than the Radical.Nasty 12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
To jump back a little bit, Nasty, what is your opinion on the above proposal? Can we drop any statement saying that the new Z06 can or cannot be beaten for less money, and simply say that it provides performance similar to supercars? TomTheHand 13:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your proposition.Nasty 12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair to say this is one of the fastest volume cars at the Ring. Both the C5/Z06 and C6/Z06 have tracked faster than more expensive mid/rear-engined cars, such as the Gallardo, Murceilago, dozens of Porsches and the vaunted NSX-R. Many of the cars that are ahead of the Z06 are hypercars. It is the cheapest supercar you can buy right now. Have a look at some of the times here: CJ DUB 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought. Here are the cars faster than the Z06. Note that the top ones are non-production, tuner cars or hypercars. The only cars that are in the same scope as the Z06 are the top 997 Porsches, GT3 and Turbo and these are far more expensive. Note that the Z06 and the McLaren SLR are the only FR cars in the pack:

6:55* -- 178.699 km/h -- Radical SR8, 360 PS/650 kg, Michael Vergers (sep,28 05)
7:12* -- 173.600 km/h -- Radical SR3 Turbo, 320 PS/500 kg (test drive 07/03) (*mfr.)
7:14.89 172.181 km/h – Donkervoort D8 270 RS, , 350 PS/600 kg, Michael Düchting (nov,6 05)

7:15.63 169.311 km/h -- Edo Porsche 996 GT2 RS, 542 PS/1284 kg, Patrick Simons (sport auto 09/05)
7:18.01 170.236 km/h -- Donkervoort D8 RS, 370 PS/670 kg, Michael Duechting, sport auto 12/2004
7:19* -- 168.929 km/h -- Radical SR3 1500 Turbo, Phil Bennet (jun,15 03) (*mfr.)
7:28 --- 166.652 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Roehrl,(Autobild 07/04)
7:32* -- 164.071 km/h – Pagani Zonda F, 650 PS/ 1230 kg, (*mfr.)
7:32.44 163.911 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, definitive time Horst von Saurma (sport auto 01/04)
7:32.52 163.882 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600 EVO, Wolfgang Kaufmann (sport auto 01)
7:33 -- 163.708 km/h -- Pagani Zonda F, 602 PS/ 1371 kg, Horst von Saurma (sport auto 05/06)
7:34 --- 163.586 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1418 kg, Horst von Saurma (sport auto), oct,17-18 05
7:36 --- 162.631 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, factory test driver Walther Röhrl (02)
7.39* -- 161.575 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:39 --- 161.575 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (12/05)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04)
7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa, (04)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05)
CJ DUB 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor handling? no way !!

I'd like to see some sources stating that the Corvette handles poorly, and I'd very much like to know what the Corvette is being compared to. I'm prepared to be wrong, but I think that statement needs some backup. I did some quick Googling but the oldest hard figures I found were for a 1993 LT-1 Corvette, which pulled 0.94 G's on the skidpad and ran the slalom at 68.2 mph. Was the problem with the pre-C4 generations? TomTheHand 17:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In an article which is quite complementory about the current Corvette, the following was said:
"What once was a crude and overpowered car prone to rattles and dicey handling in the wet has evolved into a world-class sports car,".
This suggests that it was once a wayward car when it comes to handling. This is a quote from the NY times as referenced in
In "World Sports Cars" by Frank Oleski and H. Lehbrink (1993), Duntov is reported to have said about the front and rear axles:
".. seemed to be permanently at war with each other ..."
In the same book the following is said of the 1956 Corvette:
"deficiencies: the brakes that were not up to the power of the engines, and also the chassis, hardly changed over the years - and really belonging in a museum"
The above quotes seem to be referring to older models. Based on that, it seems like any sentence about poor handling should mention something like "early models were especially criticized for poor handling." Mrand 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree, purely on the basis that the article (at least at this place) is discussing the Corvette as a whole and not one single model. I did not say that the Corvette has bad handling, just that it is one source of criticism (a frequent one AFAIK).Nasty 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. The first quote mentions the car evolving into a world-class sports car. I don't see that as saying something negative about the handling of the current generation(s). Without context, the Duntov quote could be referring to older generations, or not. We don't know. The third quote specificly mentions 1956. I'd consider that as "referring to older models." I think my original comment was accurate. Mrand 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
An Autocar article (23/11/2004) says the following about the handling of the C06:
"For overall chassis response and composure the Boxster gobbles it alive. The Vette works nicely up to a point but then its over-stiff springs and dampers just have it skipping about. It’s not a huge problem, though – to reach that point you’ll have to be tanking on at ludicrous speed. The steering’s accurate but comatosed, the limited-slip differential isn’t the most reassuring of its type. And the ride… well, the ride’s better than before but our concrete motorway sections will expose it as way short of the European best. Its inherent choppiness and inability to cope with persistent small intrusions are cruelly amplified by the run-flat tyres’ lack of compliance."
Another Autocar article says of the history of the Corvette:
"During that time the Corvette has been many things to many men and women; fast, powerful, on occasions breathtakingly beautiful and, compared with its European opposition, often exceptionally good value. But at the same time it has also been thirsty, overweight, under-achieving in terms of suspension composure and decidedly non-cutting edge technically compared with its Euro rivals."
And again about the C06:
"That said, its handling is not especially sweet or communicative. The steering, though amazingly accurate, has little in the way of genuine feel, meaning the ‘Vette can be quite a difficult machine to place perfectly on the road. So responsive is the steering immediately off-centre that you can end up rounding corners in awkward bites, applying too much lock, then winding it off, then winding it back on again in minute but clumsy inputs at the wheel. You get a neurotic reaction from the rear whenever you apply steering lock. You’ll learn to apply lock in very small but smooth amounts, at which point the entire car seems to relax beneath you. It becomes a far more fluid handler."
I don't have any other info to hand, but from reading car magazines over the last few decades, my impression has always been that the Corvette offers huge performancce and at a very affordable price, but lacks the handling of a well sorted sportscar and is just a little cheap in terms of build. Nasty 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the build quality is not the topic being discussed, so ignoring that, it is difficult for me to reconcile a few magazine claims of poor handling with the fact that it does so well at the track. Specificly, I'm referring to the C6 and C5, although I believe there were *rave* reviews of the very early C4 handling as well. Mrand 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the above quotes seem to be dealing more with ride and feel than actual handling. The intro mentions the Corvette's lack of refinement, so I think we're covered there, though maybe more detail would be good. The numbers the car puts down are good and have been since the C4 generation. If we're going to mention poor handling we should make it clear that we're talking about early cars and that the Corvette has handled well for over 20 years now. TomTheHand 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that we have a conflict of definition of handling. I for one see road-holding (levels of grip) as either a subset of handling or an entirely a separate area. "Ride and feel" and predictability, control, feedback all come under the heading of handling. Doing well on a track can be down to many factors. There is no doubt that the C6 has good levels of roadholding on tracks and has lots of power which helps, but handling on ordinary roads is a completely separate issue. Ordinary roads tend to be much bumpier and have varying surfaces, neither of which seem to suit the C6 (from above references) or earlier Corvettes. Anyway, this is not relevent as I am not asserting that the Corvette has poor handling, just that it is one of the areas in which "There has been some criticism of the Corvette ..." I provided very reputable references (Autocar is probably the leading British car magazine) to back this up. I will happily withdraw this suggestion if you can find references from other equally reputable sources which suggest that the Corvette's handling is and always has been beyond reasonable criticism. I would request that you pick non-US-American sources to remove any suggestion of bias. Nasty 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we are dealing with different definitions of handling. I believe that "feel" is completely separate from "handling," and so while the Corvette may not feel like it drives as well as, say, a Porsche 911, it can be driven faster by someone who knows what they are doing. It's not simply raw power pulling the Corvette through, either; the C5 Corvette Z06, with its 405 hp, lapped Nürburgring in the same time as the 996 Porsche 911 Turbo with 420 hp, for half the price. Again, poor refinement is already mentioned in the intro, which I believe covers "ride and feel." I believe "handling" better refers to "ability to be driven fast" than "comfort and ease of driving." I also find it odd that you say that we must provide non-US sources, because THEY will be free of bias. European sources are no less biased than American ones. They're just biased in the direction of the point you're trying to push. TomTheHand 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree that poor refinement covers "ride and feel". Poor refinement does not cover poor steering feedback which "feel" does. I believe that your definition of handling is more acurately defined as "road-holding" (see the entry for Car Handling). Also, feel does not in any way come under "comfort and ease of driving." Actually, quite often, increased car feel and communication are likely to reduce "comfort and ease of driving." I did not say that you must provide non-US sources, I just requested it, so as the make sure that their would be less suggestion of bias. If I was discussing the Porsche 911, I think that it would be inappropriate to use solely German sources. I agree that European sources are no less biased overall. Actually, I might even suggest that they are often more so, but only towards their country's cars and not other European countrys' cars. Thus, the British press is more likely to be more critical of German cars than of British ones, but no more critical of American than of German. BTW, I mixed my sources, including some US American (including Duntov himself). Even still, I feel that the fact is that I have provided valid reputable references which are critical of the Corvette's handling. Would I be right is saying that you maintain that they are only critical of its lack of refinement?Nasty 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that I am defining road-holding. I am not quoting skidpad figures, but rather overall performance. I'm fine with changing the intro to refer to poor "ride and feel" but not fine with saying "poor handling." Certainly feel is important in aiding a novice driver, or a driver who is new to the Corvette, to drive quickly. However, in the hands of an expert driver the Corvette is more capable than any car of the same price, and not simply around a skidpad but around a track. I would suggest that you yourself check out the article on car handling and see how much of it refers to "feel" and how much refers to the performance the car is capable of.
I also disagree that European magazines are in any way less biased. I feel that the sources you quoted above are heavily biased against the Corvette and ignore the actual numbers. "Thirsty, overweight, under-achieving in terms of suspension composure and decidedly non-cutting edge technically?" They were apparently not driving a Corvette built in the past 20 years, as the 'vettes have offered better mileage and similar power-to-weight to a 911 for at least that long. I am also rather bothered by the "non-cutting edge" issue that Europe keeps ripping on the Corvette about. European publications can't seem to stop harping on the "ancient" leaf springs that lower the Corvette's center of gravity while saving weight and providing world-class performance, or the ridiculously primitive pushrod V8 that produces more power than the BMW M3's 3.2L DOHC inline six while weighing less and giving better gas mileage. Again, I have no problem with a mention of the handling "feeling" bad as long as it is made clear that it isn't bad. TomTheHand 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I already stated that European publications are probably more biased, but on a country by country basis. Please remember that Europe is not a single country and there is much rivalry between different countries, but most of the countries are actually quite favourably disposed towards the US. Do you accept that the references that I quoted are criticising the handling of the Corvette? If so, do you accept that these are from reputable sources? If so, then is it not correct to say that there has been criticism of the handling of the Corvette? I am not saying that the Corvette has or has had bad handling, I am just stating that there has been such criticism by a number of reputable sources. I would even suggest that this criticism has been on-going since the inception of the Corvette and with the exception of the ZR1 (which was widely accepted as being quite good, IIRC), it has been seen as a weakness when compared with other similarly capable cars. If you feel that these sources are biased against the Corvette, please explain their motivation and provide to counter points from other publications. TBH, suggesting that Autocar is biased against the Corvette is a laugh as they actually rated the car quite highly, but they still criticise its handling. As to suggest that Arkus-Duntov is biased against it is quite incredible. Finally, the NYT? You can disagree all you want with their points of view, but to deny that there is criticism (no matter how invalid you might see it) from reputable sources is what is ridiculous.Nasty 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, from the "Thirsty, overweight, under-achieving in terms of suspension composure and decidedly non-cutting edge technically" quote, you deal with all but that which refers to handling ("under-achieving in terms of suspension composure"). Whether you are bothered by the fact that most European publications see the Corvette as being "non-cutting edge" or not has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I think that you will find that the criticism has little to do with the fact that the Corvette has pushrods or leafsprings, but more to do with refinement, smoothness, feel, etc. You will just find that many motor journalists do not actually understand much about the engineering that goes into a car and will blame leafsprings for poor composure on varying road surfaces rather than on a weak LSD, inapropriate tyres or poor suspension geometry. Finally, you have focused on track handling, which is about as close to real world handling as rally handling is, and both are very different.Nasty 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As you said, numerous "non-US-American" sources are fairly blatently biased against engines with pushrods or the the Corvette's leaf springs, but not for any factual reason - only because they think it is old technology. So I don't think there is much value in finding a specific positive review from a "non-US-American" source. Having said all of that, I quickly found that Yahoo UK has a positive review. As for the ZR-1 getting good reviews, it just goes to show how poor the reviews are (world-wide). The only thing that helped were the larger tires - with the heavier engine, overall handling was not improved by many meaningful amount.Mrand 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing. I said that when they are going to criticise a car, they look for whatever they think might be a possible source and may end up blaming elements on the vehicle which are seen as being low-tech or antiquated, even when the reality is that it is due to poor engineering and manufacturing and not to the actual principles of the design. Also, from your reference "This is, after all, an American sports car, virtually every prior example of which has tackled corners with as much relish as a salt flat racer." This is a criticism of the Corvette's handling (maybe not the C06, but every prior version). I am not and have not said that the Corvette _has_ bad handling, just that there has been criticisim of it (mostly in the past). Nasty 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I failed to mention the "under-achieving in terms of suspension composure" statement because it seems to back up what I'm saying: it is often said that the Corvette feels bad and is difficult to drive but it in fact is capable of great handling. I'm willing to accept a statement that the Corvette's handling and feel are often criticized as unrefined and uncomposed but it puts down great handling numbers. As you say, it is certainly true that people do criticize the Corvette's handling. However, I think simply saying that it is criticized for poor handling is telling only half of the story. TomTheHand 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, so you agree with me that the Corvette's handling is often criticised. That is all I have been saying and was all that I added to the article. Also, handling can't be fully articulated in numbers (yet, they are working on it) as much about a car is not commonly quantified. This is why feel does not have a measure. Nasty 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
On the NYT, I have not seen the article but I believe that selective quote reflects the stereotype that American cars are all muscle and no finesse. It does not say anything specific about the Corvette, like what generation it is criticizing or what specifically is wrong by comparison to other sports cars of the time, but simply repeats the old criticism that American cars are heavy and sloppy, similar to Autocar's "thirsty, overweight, etc etc" statement that wasn't even true.
Again, you are claiming that the contents of the references are invalid but do not provide a single article which fails to criticise the Corvette's handling past or present. You also seem to fail to realise that I am not saying whether the contents of the references is correct, just that there is such criticism from reputable sources. Nasty 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The following statement about a 1956 Corvette also strikes me as very odd: "deficiencies: the brakes that were not up to the power of the engines, and also the chassis, hardly changed over the years - and really belonging in a museum." Hardly changed over the... past three years, since the Corvette was first introduced in 1953? I'm not familiar with early Corvettes and don't have the numbers, but again this seems like someone looking back and assuming that cars back then were bad without even thinking through their statements. How could you criticize a three-year-old chassis for not having changed enough? And what are you comparing the car to? I think numbers, especially contemporary numbers comparing the car to its rivals, would be more appropriate than vague statements about how bad things used to be. Yes, cars handled worse fifty years ago, they had crappy brakes, they had sloppy chassis. But was the Corvette worse than other fifty year old cars in its price range? Maybe it was, but the numbers aren't being provided.
What numbers? Handling can't be quantified, therefore there is no number, only opinions. Nasty 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotes that you have from contemporary sources do criticize the Corvette's handling, but they do not say that it is poor. Compared to the Boxster, the Corvette is overly stiff, but it's "not a huge problem." The final quote says that the steering is not very communicative, but once you get used to it it "becomes a far more fluid handler." TomTheHand 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It's still a critical of the handling, though suggests that it is something to which you can adapt. Nasty 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to skip back to the left if it's ok. I'm finished with this discussion; it's gotten me far too worked up. Any reasonable edits that state that the Corvette has been criticized for lack of refinement and poor feel, but that also note that the car handles extremely well in spite of this, are fine with me. I will revert like your addition the other day, which stated simply that the Corvette has been criticized for "poor handling."

Fair enough. Nasty 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we might be running into a language barrier here, sort of a "two nations divided by a common language" thing. Are you from the UK? Perhaps we simply have a different definition of handling. In any case, saying "poor handling" is a grave insult and one likely to be misinterpreted by any American reader; perhaps more specific words can be used to come up with some statements we can both agree on. I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the facts of the matter, but rather the semantics. TomTheHand 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Something like this (to replace the paragraph):
The Corvette is widely regarded as "America's Sports Car". For more than 50 years, Corvettes have combined very powerful engines and affordability, especially when compared with more prestiguous marques of similar abilities. Older generations of the Corvette have been criticized for being crude and lacking in refinement by European sports car standards and their handling is a devisive issue; garnering both praise and reproach. Recent generations of the Corvette are widely seen as being much improved in these areas.
I feel that this is slightly more neutral, though it hardly rolls off the tongue. If you can suggest improvements, please make them. While I am discussing the intro, I feel that the thrid paragraph is a little too verbose and has more technical jargon than is necessary to get the point across. You and I might understand what all these things are and what they do, but the average reader of an encyclopedia is not likely to have the same level of knowledge of them and probably isn't interested in reading about DOHC, particularly in the intro. Nasty 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I like your proposed paragraph. In reference to DOHC, etc in the third paragraph, I tend to agree with you. It makes an important point but the technical details are unnecessary. How about:
Corvettes tend to emphasize simplicity over technical complexity. Where nearly all competing marques rely on smaller displacement, more complex engines, the Corvette uses a simpler overhead valve (OHV) design coupled with a larger displacement. The result is often both lighter and physically smaller than the more complex arrangements, as well as cheaper to manufacture. Another example of this philosophy is the continued use of transverse leaf springs in the suspension. This lack of sophistication is sometimes viewed as a negative by automotive purists, and has fueled the aforementioned "lack of refinement" argument.
Basically the same thing, but with most of the technical detail trimmed out. TomTheHand 00:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just some info from a car nut. Almost every time there's a comparision most recently with the Car and Driver, comparing the Z06, with the Viper. The only negative thing said about the Vette compared to the Viper was there was a couple moments when the handling made them less than sure. But this is about the only bad thing they would say about the car, so it gets amplified so the reviewer doesn't look biased. It's also a 60K car, compare that to the "super car" prices which it gets compared to at times and of course your not going to expect it to be perfect. But it appears to be the only place people can really complain about the car so people are going to push that note. Also remember most of these "poor handling" comments are from people pushing the car, I haven't heard that one who drives it casually around the city or on a highway.--Kinglink 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your waisting your time Tom. This Nasty guy is in a complete state of denial about the Vette. He just cant grasp the fact that most of his Euro Porsche and Ferarri money goes to support their individual racing habbits and not make for a better car.

Porsche and Ferrari make money on racing. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferarri spends 450 MILLION Euros per year on F1 ... how much of your F430 money actually goes into the car??? Its all BS.

Yes, all you have said so far is "BS" Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Typical ... the only saving grace of Europeans throwing away all that money is the "mystique" of "name recognition" Porsche moves a tailight and says ALL NEW 911!!.. every 2 years , and Euro's line up to donate to the Porsche cause.

What has anything Porsche does got to do with the Corvette's handling? Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Corvette is cheaper and more fuel effecient(C6 and C6 Z06 are the ONLY 400 and 500 hp production cars sold in the USA that DOES NOT get hit with the GasGuzzler tax,, UNBELIEVABLE technological acheivement Chevy!

Again, nothing to do with the handling. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's built by the highest paid laborforce in the world(UAW)...But thx the MAGNIFICENT SmallBlock Chevy its an affordable race car.

What does the amount people are paid have to do with anything, especially handling? Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Acording to a popular European carshow called "Top Gear",, the Corvette Z06 POUNDS! all but the Most overpriced Euroexotics.Jeremy Clarckson couldn't handle it either and had to go his typical, focus on POINTLESS shit route(SATNAV,Firm supension, bla bla ...)after praising its technology and performance.

I dont't think that they said that it "POUNDS! all but the Most overpriced Euroexotics", but that is your interpretation of it. I also know that the Z06 is not the only Corvette and that since this page discusses the Corvette as a whole, it would be incorrect to just take one example. One must view the Corvette throughout its entire life and not just recent ones.

The taking off in 5 gear trick, and goin from 0 - 175 mph in ONE GEAR was AWESOME!!

Again, nothing to do with the handling. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Chevy! for as Tiff Needel (of Top Gear and 5thGear fame)..says "the americans are showing us... how to do it" and telling "Aston Martin and Jaguar... eat your hearts out.."over the exhaust note.

Tiff is a very well respected car journalist and his view on the Corvette in the past has been less than flattering. I remember him comparing a Porsche 911 Carrera 2, Nissan Skyline and Corvette on a race track and while the Corvette was the most powerful, it was the slowest, suggesting that handling was so bad compared with the Porsche and Nissan that it wasn't able to keep up. Again, this is only one point in time and the Corvette and Porsche 911 have moved on since then, but since we are discussing all Corvettes, it would be wrong to view this as the only data point. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Ive seen these "tests" and Ive seen Chevrolet's test driver lap Porches in the rain cause he CAN drive a car with all that power and low downforce.(once again an $80000 Nissan,Porche and vs the Base model Vette,,not Lt1 or Z06 way to pussy out) Top Gear does the same thing .

Please provide verifiable references so that we can all compare. I have already provided references above. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about Tiff is that Top Gear and 5thGear are notoriously Biased towards British and European Cars regardless of all the victories the Vette has here over the years against them. And ohhh yeah Tiff drove Porche 944s when they were getting POUNDED by Vettes here in the EIGHTIES in the SCCA showroom class.So that explains his reluctance to like the car (jus like in his review of the new Z06). from

Firstly, you mentioned Tiff and his praise for the Corvette and then go claiming that he is biased against it! Do you have anything other than the fact that his opinion differs from yours to suggest that he is biased against the Corvette? The fact that he raced against them and lost, would suggest to me that he would praise the handling, not deride it. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


"Racing at the same time were Corvettes of a different nature. Labeled "Showroom Stock", they were as close to a street-driven production car as imaginable. In the mid-80's, when new Corvette chief engineer, Dave McLellan rolled out the great fourth-generation Corvette, it was all over for the competition. Things quickly reached the point where the question wasn't which car would win, but which Corvette would win - a situation similar to the one described earlier by Dick Thompson. By 1987, after winning every SCCA Showroom Stock Series race (nineteen in a row), despite the best efforts of manufacturers like Porsche, Corvette was simply legislated out of the series.

Undaunted, Chevrolet launched its own race series, The Corvette Challenge. In 1988 and 1989, identically-prepared C4 Corvettes with some of the world's best drivers aboard competed for million-dollar purses, and produced some of the most thrilling showroom stock racing ever. "

You tell me Nasty,, how could this car own Europen cars like this and not handle extremely well ?????

You take a piece from a Corvette enthusiasts site as a reference! That would be like me taking a quote from Christophorus or "Caravan Magazine" as my source of information about the Corvette, you can only expect bias. As for suggesting that the Corvette "owned" European cars, there are many different categories of motor-racing, some which will suit the Corvette (those that don't have power restrictors, maximum engine sizes, etc.) and there are those that do not. In many series, the Corvette has either proved less competitive, or just not been raced because it is not expected to have a chance. For instance, the GT3 class at the 24 hours of Le Mans has been dominated by Porsche 911s (though there are no factory entries), not Corvettes. As for being legislated out of a series, how exactly were they legislated out? I know that in the past, other car companies have been prevented from competing in series, not by being explicitly barred, but by virtue of the fact that their racers relied on a technical advancement/feature which has been baned. This is nothing new and not particularly special. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

and my personal fav "it has to be the BEST value supercar on sale today" Tiff Needel 5thGear5/22/2006

Again, value has nothing to do with handling. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah but supercar does...isnt that a term usualy saved for your favorite waste of metals??

I'm not sure that I understand your broken English. You seem to be suggesting that my favourite "waste of metals" (by which I assume you mean car) is a supercar. It might be a sports car, but I wouldn't call it a supercar. Similarly, I get the feeling that you believe that because the Corvette Z06 has been called a supercar, that somehow this bestows the Corvette throughout its history with good handling. I believe, and all references I have read to date back this up, that the C6 Z06 handles very well indeed. At no point have I suggested otherwise, but it does not mean that the C1, C2, ... all have fantastic handling, or even handling on a par with other competing cars. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what you want Nasty,, we all know you will,,, but Mr. Needel's opinion of the Z06 outweighs your's by metric Tons!

I agree. My opinion is not important, and your's no more so than mine, but the fact is that there has been division historically about the handling of the Corvette and the current introduction reflects this. If you feel that everyone of note believes that the Corvette has had excpetional handling throughout its life, please find references, but honestly, I know that the handling of the Corvette is historically considered sub-par by European press when compared with similar performance competitiors. Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Through out its life??? huh?? what Porche??? has had excellent handling through out its life???!!

The 944, Boxster, 959, 924, Cayman... Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Porche 911s were known as widowmakers in Europe and America While Ferrari changes its models too much to make any such claim(BTW the 355 AND 360 were also known for its deadly at the limit style handling,) Point is, HANDLING IS SUBJECTIVE!!! skidpad numbers?? the 1984 Corvette is the first production car to pull over 1 Gforce on the 700 foot skidpad. FACT!

The 911 did have a fierce reputation for punishing those that were unable to handle it, and it also had a fierce reputation on the racetrack as a bit of a giant-killer. This is not about the 911, but the Corvette. Compare the contemporary Corvettes with the Lotus 7, Elite, Elan, Esprit, Elise, Dino 246, Ferrari 328, Porsche 911 Carrera 2.7RS, Porsche 356 Speedster, Alfa Romeo Duetto, BMW Z3M Coupe, Chrysler Viper, Jaguar E-Type, etc. I agree that handling is subjective, but there seems to be two camps when it comes to the Corvette, people either love it or they hate it. You seem to think that somehow the former is right, if so, provide unbiased, verifiable, reputable references (and not just for the recent Corvettes, but all the way back to the first). Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I love the lame Radical or even Ariel Atom comments... 2 cars that could ONLY pass road worthiness tests in Britain. an SUV would squash it here and not feel a thing. Its pretty pathetic to point out a car that would need a front end alignment every other day on anything but the most perfect A roads. LOL

The fact is that they do not only pass road worthiness tests in Britain, but even if they did, they would still be road worthy. Whether an SUV would crush one or not is again not important (how does that impact handling?). Again, do you have anything references to back up your assertion that these cars require "a front end alignment every other day on anything but the most perfect A roads."? Nasty 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

can u prove your road worthyness statement above or any of your opinion stated as fact above?? doubt it

You accept that it is roadworthy in the UK. That means that it is roadworthy (at least in 3-countries). I think that if you look at, radical's own website, or any number of other sites, you will find Radicals that have been SVAd, which means that they are roadworthy in a few countries. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This corvette(C6) is the first true time that the vette is being maketed to u guys..thus the European style handling. Once again, we have never realy cared about Europe's opinion on the Vette it IS America's Sports Car and has defeated Europes finest on every track here in America on many occasions..

You may not have cared, but Wikipedia does, so the view of European, Asian, African, Australian, etc. people is important and should be reflected in this article. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
These are the people who call the Golf  a car for every man..  Man?? huh?  not here..

real men dont spin their FRONT tyres. LOL

My opinion would be that real men don't really care, but little boys are awfully impressed by RWD and tyre spinning. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom said it all when he mentioned style of handling vs good handling.. a Honda CVCC handles well but why??? LOL.

like i said, d e n i a l ..ppffff

I am not in denial, but there are many Corvette fans who are. I honestly neither like nor dislike the Corvette, so I believe that I am objective. That said, the Corvette fans that I have dealt with have made me think long and hard about that position. has been a good example of the well thought out, researched, unbiased, non-aggressive, open-minded, linguistically gifted individual that seems to make up a significant fraction of the Corvette fan base.
I also try to find references to back up my position, at least where my position is going to be reflected in the article, but this article is rubbish, it reads like it has been written by a Corvette salesman, not an unbiased researcher, which has resulted in this article no longer being a selected article in Portals:Cars and no longer being considered a good article. With a bit of work, and a lot less bias, this article could be these and more, but too many Corvette fans are ruining this article because they won't hear a single criticism against it, and you accuse me of denial! I tried to fix some of the blatent bias and still have something that Corvette fans would accept, but at the end of the day, I gave up. If any Corvette fans want the Corvette to get more coverage, get cracking and fix up this sad excuse for an article, but making it even more biased is going to help. Nasty 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading most of this discussion, I would like to point out a few observations:

  • There are no unbiased sources. It is part of human nature to be biased.
  • Every car has been criticised for something. Whether or not the criticism is based on fact is not the point. You cannot please everyone.
  • There are many different aspects of "handling." A car may handle well on a track, but not as well on a bumpy road. Also, The driver's ability has quite a lot to do with the handling. Also, driving at race speeds on a track is quite different from driving at normal speeds on ordinary roads.

That being said, I believe that we should not argue over whether someone's claims are based on fact or not. The article should simply present the facts, then let the reader form his own conclusions. For instance, the article makes no reference to the cars' top speed, slalom times, braking distance, and so on. --BBGun06 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should present facts, where they exist, but these articles would be very boring if they only listed numbers and verified facts. I feel that opinion is also of value, but it must not be the opinion on the author but of reliable and reputable references. There is little need for primary research on this topic as there is a huge amount of information and opinion available on Corvettes and where the opinion is from a reliable and reputable source (Car and Driver, Autocar, etc.) it has a place on this article.
Also, I noted that you deleted huge sections of text, which I have reinstated. If you have a reason to delete it, please let us know.Nasty 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


This article is laughable, and frankly gives the car a bad image. The article is full of incorrect, biased (or at best) highly debatable ‘information’ (the 3rd paragraph in particular) To my shock I noticed that this article is also a 'Selected Article' for the Portal:Cars section!! Who the hell selected it, I nearly got a fregin heart attack when I noticed that! And anyone who replies to this please note I’m not even going to start debating with Americans who seem to think that 'American made' is gold, and nothing from Europe can beat it, because that’s not the point. This is an encyclopaedia not an enthusiast's article!

This article needs serious editing to get it to even half decent Wikipedia standards. I mean for a simple example how many citations or references are there in the entire article? Im sure at this pint Some smart arse is about to reply 'But but this is not the only article which has no citations' well let me reply in advance, its not so much the shabby parts of article i’m worried about, its the fact that its featured in the Portal:Cars section

So for the love of god remove this article from Portal:Cars!! Or at least let me know who 'selects' these Portal:Cars articles so I can rip their heads off, lol [Portal:Cars selected articles] --JCW 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please don't rip my head off ;) Well, the selected articles in Portal:Cars are basically all car articles that has been listed as featured articles or good articles. And this article is actually listed as a good article. If you don't have the time/energy/knowledge to fix all the things you dislike about this article, there is a possibility to delist the article. --Boivie 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you are interested in who listed this article as a good article, try this link. (but please don't rip his head off either) --Boivie 20:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

lol purely metaphorical I assure you ;o) But thanks, and I will delist it.

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of the many (above) unresolved issues raised on this discussion page. Also when this article was nominated to be a 'feature article' it failed, the reasons it failed also prevent it from becoming a 'good article' --JCW 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

List Games with Corvettes in them?

I just reverted the following addition: The Chevrolet Corvette C6 and C6-R were both featured in the computer game Need for Speed: Most Wanted. It doesn't seem to me to be the type of thing that would need to be listed in an encyclopedia, unless it is something *especially* notable AND timeless. Otherwise, how many games do you list? And how many years after the game is discontinued does it remain in the article? Any disagreements? Mrand 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Corvette is found in way too many games for its appearance to be notable. TomTheHand 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the list should be maintained in a separate article and linked here? Odd that there's no 'references to Corvette in popular culture' section, though such a section would probably be about as large as the Corvette article and each individual generation article combined. Ayocee 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The section regrew and continued to be maintained, but considering it has little to do with the Corvette itself, I took Ayocee's suggestion and created Chevrolet Corvette in popular culture. Mrand 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition because it fails to meet WP criteria for notability and verifiability. Performance figures for modified cars are only of interest for a small group of people, but not relevant for the general audience of an encyclopedia. Additionally enthusiast online forums are not an accepted source. Bal00 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that the claim was a performance figure for an unmodified car, and I understand how someone can have the highest respectability in a community (such that he is completely trusted when he claims the car to be stock), I agree that it is not a verifiable source. Having said all that, perhaps part of the addition could remain, basicly stating that the C&D test may not have produced the fastest times that the car is capable of. Mrand 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the car in question had drag radial tires, which means it had significantly better traction than one with regular street tires. For a powerful RWD car that makes a lot of difference. It's understood that magazine times can be beaten because they go for comparability rather than the lowest possible figures. If someone takes the time to fiddle with tire pressures, keeps the fuel tank low, removes unnecessary equipment, waits for the right weather and time of the day etc. to make his run and is a good driver, he will do better than the magazine drivers. However, comparability goes out the window because you now have to keep track of all the variables and be able to judge their effects for the figures to be meaningful. Additionally the figures would depend on the size, determination and skill of the owners community rather than the capabilities of the car. Plus, you would open a huge can of worms because one man's "showroom stock" is another man's "modified". Would icing down intakes or intercoolers be permittable for example? What about lowering the tire pressures below spec or running aftermarket wheels? I think these discussions are best left to message boards or websites like Bal00 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I missed the aftermarket tires. I agree it isn't stock. Mrand 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sting Ray and Stingray monikers

In the interests of violent pedantry, the "Sting Ray" sub-name was used from 1963-1967. Note that it is two words. The 1968 was just "Corvette," then the "Stingray" (one word now) sub-name appeared on the 1969 Corvette, and was apparently dropped after the 1976 model year. It doesn't need any special treatment in this article, but the two names should be used correctly in the respective years. I can only find this usenet article detailing the particulars; perhaps someone can dig up a nice authoritative cite and correct things. rcousine 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Automobile's 'Z07' "information"

I removed the blurb at the end of the Blue Devil bit because while yes, it has a "source", that source appears to be blissfully ignorant of reality.

"The LS7 will have its displacement enlarged": The LS7 is at the physical extremes of what is possible with the GenIII/IV block as we know it. Unless GM is planning a massive redesign of the block (as in, the return of the true 'big block' to cars, which is highly doubtful) there is no way GM would build a larger warranty/emissions friendly V8 than the LS7. The vast majority of more verifiable rumors put Blue Devil's engine as a supercharged 6.2L, trading displacement for strength, much like the supercharged Northstar in the XLR-V.

If you have any question as to whether Automobile's source is legit or not, look at their picture: It's a badly photoshopped Z06. It has a few random NACA ducts slapped on it, and the front scoop in the hood is physically impossible on a C6. Ayocee 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LSX Revealed

As shown at - the "LSX" trademark is GM's name for the new 454 cubic-inch cast-iron crate engine that GM Performance Parts will be offering, and not anything likely to be destined for Blue Devil. Ayocee 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Different photo for the top of the article?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a picture of a Euro-front-plated car as the title image for an article about an American icon? :) If I get a chance, I'll see if I can get a clean shot of my dad's '06, but I bet someone can find a better image of a C6 to use than what we've got as it is. Ayocee 05:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Too much NEW not enough OLD

This article is about the Corvette in general. So why so much stuff about specific modern models? Do we really need 4 subsections on the C4, and separate subsections on the C5-R, Blue Devil, Z06s, etc.? And then the C1-C3 all get only one section, and in fact only one paragraph on the C1! Think about it... the C4-C6 wouldn't be here without the C1 and yet the C1 gets shafted like that! The article is ridiculously biased towards modern Corvettes. The C4-C6 sections should be shortened and information especially on cars like the C5-R or Blue Devil or 1984 model year should be merged into the main subsections or removed completely! Since we have Main Articles on each generation, why include the nitty-gritty details in the general Corvette article? Maybe I'm just upset since I'm a bigger fan of the older ones but it does seem unbalanced. 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From Scryer_360, the guy who does not sign in...

I removed the line that said the Corvette Z06 was faster than the vehicles it was pacing at the Daytona 500 on Indy 500. For one what is "faster" is up to debate: faster 0 to 60, higher top speed, what?

Second, it is just not true. Just look at the specs. If you can find a GM representative who will go on record claiming that a Corvette Z06 will beat a NASCAR or Indy Car in any race (with the exception, maybe and a big maybe at that, of a NASCAR in a race with curves and real turns), then he will probably be fired or sued for fraudulent advertising or something very, very soon after making that statement.

And what the hell is with all the weasel words (And sentences) in this thing? If someone read this article they might actually think a Z06 could beat a Gallardo in a street race! AWD and that hp versus a rwd platform? Maybe in the drag, but the corners would kill even a Corvette. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I decided to sign in to say this

As I look at this article, I find tons of stuff written by what sounds like a corvette salesman. Yet when I look at Nissan, Audi, or BMW articles, generally, they are a lot simpler, a lot of the crap and sales pitch is left out.

Is it due to an unenthused base of BMW and Audi and Nissan owners? No, this is a worldwide site, and Germans, Japanese and Americans all seem to like the English Wiki.

So now I will just mention to the people who pump up this article, and any other car article, with crap: stop it, you are just hurting your image.

A few days ago I was talking with a friend from Britain over my Skype line. Cars came up, and I asked what GM was offering there in the Isles. His first words: "Why would I buy cars from a pension company?" I balked, GM is not a pension company! It makes cars. It does have GMAC but its primary business is cars.

And then he mentioned how GM approaches its automobiles. This Corvette maybe an exception, but what do we here about from GM when we turn on the Telly or read the paper? Jobs, unions, healthcare, pensions, really the last thing we here about are the cars. IF the news ran anything about Audi or Toyota, its usually about a new model or some new technology, or something of that nature. You cannot claim the media is biased about this: CNN gave away a freaking Hummer H1 from Iraq, FX, probably the most liberal network out there, is giving away a Pontiac Solstice, and back to CNN, Lou Dobbs is broadsiding foreign competitors all the time.

No, when someone thinks of GM, the cars are in the bottom of the top ten things that comes to mind. And most people do not stack tons of stuff about individual companies up together, so a top ten list is going to be pretty broad.

My British friend then started talking about Nissan, Volkswagen and Mini. Surprisingly, he did not even mention the Ford Focus European model, which I've been under the impression is an incredibly decent car.

If you really want to get American autos back into the scene, the marketing and diggs at competitors have to stop. Do not build reputations, pensions, unions and politics. Build cars. Build good cars. The rest will eventually come with it. Scryer_360 08:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


I think it be worth noting in the "Corvetter in Popular Culture" segment, the song Little Red Corvetter. After all, it's an awesome song referring to an awesome car. Eenyminy 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

C7 reference appears to be a kit car, not a GM concept car

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the link (#16) and note about a C7 concept car appears to be simply an independent company's kit car - not a GM sponsored concept car. It should be removed. 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're right - GM wouldn't be readying a production car for SEMA. Removed it. Ayocee 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Main article thinning

It seems like we've moved away from the whole purpose of splitting the cars off into generational articles - the C4, C5, and C6 sections in particular are heavily to blame since they're all at least 2/3 as long as their own main pages. I've also got to question the relevance of the C5 Z06 getting its own page when other models like the C4 ZR1, C6 Z06, and Blue Devil don't have them - and that page also appears to be a massive copyright violation but that's best saved for that page in particular. Ayocee 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When the sections were broken out into new pages, for whatever reason, the content here in the main article was never trimmed down to a summary. The end result has been that we have massive duplication between the main article and the sub-articles. I agree the C5 Z06 content should almost certainly be merged into the C5 page as well. —Mrand T-C 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this up for cleanup

The whole article reads POV, and a wiki trace shows that General Motors is indeed editing the article, meaning we now need to add protection to it.

I mean, common, the constant plugging of how the Z06 is refered to by some people as a "supercar" killer? One maybe in the straights but I have yet to see an article or source of any kind claim the same for real road courses. And once again, I traced this back to GM. Also, doesn't it read like a brochure? This car has many flaws and none of them are discussed: compare that with other vehicles on Wiki in which well known flaws are considered important enough to post.

All in all, I will be requesting protection if I see more edits where its reverted to this state again.

Signed by Scryer_360, still to lazy and to tired to sign in to sign his posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From Scryer the resident lazy editor again

And what the hell is with the length? This page is 56 kilobytes! 56 KILOBYTES!

Im editing out the weasel words under the C6 but I know I won't get them all. A "higher level of refinement" is a weasel 3-some of words, as its debatable and baiting. Also, the following sentence acts like a salesmans line, all this about "sportier" blah blah.

Time to grind the axe again, because I'm going to hack this article to bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I killed the following

Many cars have popular culture references, shirts and ad campaigns. Yet the Corvette article is the only one that seemed to not get the memo on how those are not relevant pieces to post, so I axed it.

I also axed the "distiguishing features" section. All cars have little things that make them recognizeable: none of them have their own sections about it on wikipedia except this horribly weasel-worded Wikipedia article.

Also, I axed out all the references to how the C6 and its variants beat this or that car, sans its posted numbers in race series or track times. Many cars spank the Corvette, but they don't have "a time few other cars can post" on their articles.

On a final note: I know there are some fanatical Corvette people out there who added some of this, not all of it was traced back to GM, just most of it. I realize you love the car and you might be pissed that some people won't buy American vehicles. Well, tough. There are people pissed that American cars are still sold, they don't come in here and shit on everything do they? I've edited articles for other car companies where foreign car lovers were mad we did not allow them to pump the car as bad as you have done here: I told them the same thing, tough.

Live with the fact the Corvette is not the best thing ever. Its a good car, no one will say otherwise, but it does not need a longer article than any other car. There are cars with longer histories and more sales that have fewer kilobytes dedicated than this one, live with it.

Scryer_360 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


A few more things: I shaved a lot off the C4 ZR-1 sections. Simply put, words like "huge performance" are compared to what? "Robustness" compared to what? And why do we have un-cited track times posted as official numbers?

I'm simply pissed at the article I guess.... why do enthusiasts of American brands have to be so stupid? I mean computer processor enthusiasts don't do this: if an Intel guy posts false or misleading statements on AMDs page, I've seen Intel people remove it, or at least attempt to cite it and remove weasel words!

Or in other Automobiles: BMW people and Mercedes people both work to keep both companies pages honest, yes they overstep sometimes but those who overstep get looked down on.

Note this: I've made copies of this page before I edited it. If I see it get reborn, I'll edit again and request a lock on editing plus a ban on GM's IRL from posting here.

One more thing: the opening paragraphs were also full of garbage weasel words and such. They have been shaved. Scryer_360 05:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre- 1967 Sting Rays (C2)

In the article C2 Sting Rays are called "Stingray." It should be two words. I can't find a proper source for this, but it can be verified by looking at 1967 and earlier Sting Rays.

Yes, I realize that there is no "Original Research," but it is almost a crime to many Corvette enthusiasts to call a pre-'67 Vette a "Stingray." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret fire1 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Corvette Timeline

Please visit my updated timeline to include my C6 ZR1. The new ZR1 is to replace the Z06 in top performance.
Here are my coded changes: BBar
Any changes, should I just update the template, or maybe just forget all about it? Thanks for your time and dedication... BBar (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to shorten the the ZR1 to just "R" for now, since the C6 ZR1 isn't likely to last beyond the C6 generation timespan. —Mrand T-C 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pease correct the minor errors

I have noticed that while I am reading this article that I am.... UNABLE to read it. I'm not simple but the sentence strucuture of this page is extremely hard to follow, causing me (and other readers) to take more time and read over the same sentence mulitple times. It also bugs me that it sounds like it was written by a 5th grader which also ties into it being hard to read. I am a huge fan of the Corvette and I hate seeing how this article is written. So please, if you would be so kind, help make sense of these sentences by simply adding, deleting, or re-writing one sentence at a time. Thank you. LAZZO (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ZR1 first appearance

I've noticed that it's considered '95 when the ZR1 was first produced by Chevrolet. However the Corvette ZR1 was pace car of the year for Nascar and the Daytona 500 back in 1984. I remember this because I had a model of the car. Thought it should be brought forward since it affects the timeline of the Corvette. (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Silenus 01/20/200999.249.144.29 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship (Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And, an editor has proposed renaming Category:Corvettes to Category:Corvettes (ship). The CFD discussion is here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1983 Corvette

There is no way to prove that all 44 1983 Corvettes (except one) were crushed. I understand that this information is backed up from numerous sources on the Internet, but GM has never produced proof that almost every single one of those cars were crushed. Until they do so, I move to strike "All 44 1983 model year prototypes assembled were crushed except for one (the 23rd produced..." from this article. Any thoughts? --Grammar Watchdog (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A statement that is questionable and unsourced should be removed in most situations. Go for it. —Mrand TalkC 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)