No more leaf-springs?

[TheGorram]

I was watching the latest C7 video when I caught this...



Now I may be looking at this wrong, but is it just me or are am I not the only seeing the leaf-springs missing here???

[sixpeedreams]

Originally Posted by TheGorram

...is it just me or are am I not the only seeing the leaf-springs missing here???

God I hope so. But I see something that looks like a FG leaf on top the a-arm. And there's no coil on that shock. Base Vette should have coil-overs and Z06/ZR1 TI coils!

[Patrick]

The C7 still has leaf springs.

[dreamcars99]

They are too invested in the long-standing story about the greatness of the leaf springs to abandon them now. They won't go away until someone at GM comes up with a story about how they always were awesome, but now they found a way to make coils as good. /sarcasm, but its heartfelt sarcasm at least.

We're stuck with them. Yes I know they lower the Cg by .000001 inches, similar to the amount the Cg is lowered if you simply don't have lunch before driving.

I sure hope the car isn't as jumpy as the C6 Z06 was. Its the greatest flaw of the car. Also, in a way, thrilling, truly. Also, in a way, endearing. I guess thats how old school Porsche lovers felt. The knowledge that your car may try to kill you at this very corner is very very truly thrilling and invigorating. But it is a flaw, not a virtue.

[sixpeedreams]

if leafs are better why doesn't anyone use them? does any modern sportscar or racecar use leaf springs? i'm just sick of hearing the jokes about it. it seems like they would cost more than a standard coil spring too. And FG isn't lightweight.

[dreamcars99]

Originally Posted by sixpeedreams

if leafs are better why doesn't anyone use them? does any modern sportscar or racecar use leaf springs? i'm just sick of hearing the jokes about it. it seems like they would cost more than a standard coil spring too. And FG isn't lightweight.

:agre e:

I think at this point its like one of the 'Vette bosses just won't let them die a quiet death because he or she is too personally invested in the BS about their advantages.

[Blast]

Originally Posted by sixpeedreams

if leafs are better why doesn't anyone use them? does any modern sportscar or racecar use leaf springs? i'm just sick of hearing the jokes about it. it seems like they would cost more than a standard coil spring too. And FG isn't lightweight.

Hm, without discussing the technical merits of either solution, I have to ask :

If W16s are better (Veyron), why don't everybody use them?

If Pushrod engines are better, why don't everybody use them?

If rear-rear cars (Porsche) are better, why aren't all cars rear-rear?

If Mid-rear are better (Lambo), why aren't all cars ..

If manual gearboxes are better, why do many cars come with the option of manual or automatic? Why do some come with dual-clutch? Etc, etc etc ...

Take all sports cars and tell exactly how many have the following in common:

Engine in the same place.
Engine of the same displacement
Engine have the same number of cylinders.
Same type of gearbox.
Using the same amount of wheels to power the car.

Then go back to your question, it's just "one of those things".

The Corvette does it a certain way, other cars use different solutions. Some prefer something, some something else.

Doesn't mean one solution may not be better than another, but better how?

// Stefan

[spd98]

The leaf springs are a great idea. "Just because nobody else" is a pitiful excuse for an argument. There are no contenders that match the Corvette in it's performance for it's price range period.

If you look at the pic it seems to share the same attachment area as the sway bar now.

[Andonis]

Originally Posted by Blast

Hm, without discussing the technical merits of either solution, I have to ask :

If W16s are better (Veyron), why don't everybody use them?

If Pushrod engines are better, why don't everybody use them?

If rear-rear cars (Porsche) are better, why aren't all cars rear-rear?

If Mid-rear are better (Lambo), why aren't all cars ..

If manual gearboxes are better, why do many cars come with the option of manual or automatic? Why do some come with dual-clutch? Etc, etc etc ...

Take all sports cars and tell exactly how many have the following in common:

Engine in the same place.
Engine of the same displacement
Engine have the same number of cylinders.
Same type of gearbox.
Using the same amount of wheels to power the car.

Then go back to your question, it's just "one of those things".

The Corvette does it a certain way, other cars use different solutions. Some prefer something, some something else.

Doesn't mean one solution may not be better than another, but better how?

// Stefan

Some of the answers because they are more expensive. (W16, gearbox and mid engine layout)
Other answers because not everything that looks to be cutting edge is necessarily better. Nobody said Porsches have the easiest way. Actually Porsche is the one, who CANNOT change because of the conservative customers!!! Porsche wanted to abandon the 911 structure long ago, not to improve it till the end of days.
But it is really hard, they might lose clients.
The 928 was intended to be the successor of the 911. That's why they are really trying to get the Cayman some hype, because they are tired of the 911. Also the Carrera GT and the 918 is exploring new ways (mid). Now they want to move away with the new design language they wish people will embrace. But even the teardrop headlight was a big problem among customers, and the value of the 996 decreased because of this "ïncident".
The smaller Porsche, the Boxster is also an "anything but 911". In the 80s they really wanted to get on new territory with the 944, then 968. So, no Porsche is not really into the 911 layout.
Sometimes they wish they never did it.

Mid engine
Not many have this type of structure (Lamborghini, Ferrari, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Porsche, Bugatti) and there is a reason for that. It is not the GT way. And Corvette is a GT, but performs as a supercar.

If GM wanted a supercar, then we would be talking about MID ENGINE (Indy, CERV, Cien) by now.

This is the same reason why Lexus built the LFA with engine on the front, will build its next top dog also, the Nissan has the GTR, all the Astons are as they are, Maserati as well, and Ferrari also has the 456, 550, 599, F12, FF, Cali...so this is a delicate question. Why isn't the Mercedes SLS, SLR, SL mid engined? Because all these machines are meant to be GTs.
I hope this answers your mid engine Q

As for Corvette design, looks like GM really wants to shift a bit from the target customers to new customers. Look at GTR, Supra, LFA, F12 and you will see what they want.

Engines.
A V6 is a very feasible type of engine, especially with turbos. V8 is a bit bigger, but halfway between the V10 and V12s. A W16 or V16 is only for the show I believe.

Gearbox
Who said manuals are better? It's the classical way, but nowadays the new types shift far faster than any manual. It's just for the feeling and the price. It is cheaper though. But Corvette is not a cheap car, and I have a very strong feeling that by January we'll be looking at the new benchmark in sportscar terms. It will be a GT delivering supercar performance.

[dobrenyr]

simple answer... corvette's have to make a profit... with many other cars, such as the LFA or the GT-R, they are sold below the cost point since they are considered flagship cars. Corvettes compete against cars costing twice as much and are still sold with a profit margin for GM, so that dictates everything that goes into that car.
Everytime GM has a serious shot at the corvette, there is always some kind of financial crisis either for GM or for the US economy in general and that affects the cost of the design.
with the expect 9% increase, it better look and perform light years better than the current C6 but everything i can see points to simple incremental improvements.. call it a C6.8

[spd98]

I would also like to point out that a multi-layer fiber reinforced leaf is more advanced technology than a simple steel coil.

[Blast]

Originally Posted by Andonis

Some of the answers because they are more expensive. (W16, gearbox and mid engine layout)
Other answers because not everything that looks to be cutting edge is necessarily better. Nobody said Porsches have the easiest way. Actually Porsche is the one, who CANNOT change because of the conservative customers!!! Porsche wanted to abandon the 911 structure long ago, not to improve it till the end of days.
But it is really hard, they might lose clients.
The 928 was intended to be the successor of the 911. That's why they are really trying to get the Cayman some hype, because they are tired of the 911. Also the Carrera GT and the 918 is exploring new ways (mid). Now they want to move away with the new design language they wish people will embrace. But even the teardrop headlight was a big problem among customers, and the value of the 996 decreased because of this "ïncident".
The smaller Porsche, the Boxster is also an "anything but 911". In the 80s they really wanted to get on new territory with the 944, then 968. So, no Porsche is not really into the 911 layout.
Sometimes they wish they never did it.

Mid engine
Not many have this type of structure (Lamborghini, Ferrari, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Porsche, Bugatti) and there is a reason for that. It is not the GT way. And Corvette is a GT, but performs as a supercar.

If GM wanted a supercar, then we would be talking about MID ENGINE (Indy, CERV, Cien) by now.

This is the same reason why Lexus built the LFA with engine on the front, will build its next top dog also, the Nissan has the GTR, all the Astons are as they are, Maserati as well, and Ferrari also has the 456, 550, 599, F12, FF, Cali...so this is a delicate question. Why isn't the Mercedes SLS, SLR, SL mid engined? Because all these machines are meant to be GTs.
I hope this answers your mid engine Q

As for Corvette design, looks like GM really wants to shift a bit from the target customers to new customers. Look at GTR, Supra, LFA, F12 and you will see what they want.

Engines.
A V6 is a very feasible type of engine, especially with turbos. V8 is a bit bigger, but halfway between the V10 and V12s. A W16 or V16 is only for the show I believe.

Gearbox
Who said manuals are better? It's the classical way, but nowadays the new types shift far faster than any manual. It's just for the feeling and the price. It is cheaper though. But Corvette is not a cheap car, and I have a very strong feeling that by January we'll be looking at the new benchmark in sportscar terms. It will be a GT delivering supercar performance.

Yes. You answered it perfectly... almost.

My point was : If all of those things are "better", why don't everybody else do one that has them all?

Many reasons.

Cost as you point out, just being different being another, technical merits, well adapted to the rest of the platform is a big one.

I mean, take a light car and you likely won't be wanting to run a big V8, but take a slightly larger car and running a 4-banger with a blower don't make much sense.

It's all about the whole package.

The Corvette design team chose stuff for whatever reasons they did, and it's really up to them. We ? we vote with our wallets.

If leaf springs and V8s don't fit the bill for us, then we buy something that does.

Everybody make their own choices.

// Stefan

[Roadkillz]

Originally Posted by dobrenyr

simple answer... corvette's have to make a profit... with many other cars, such as the LFA or the GT-R, they are sold below the cost point since they are considered flagship cars. Corvettes compete against cars costing twice as much and are still sold with a profit margin for GM, so that dictates everything that goes into that car.
Everytime GM has a serious shot at the corvette, there is always some kind of financial crisis either for GM or for the US economy in general and that affects the cost of the design.
with the expect 9% increase, it better look and perform light years better than the current C6 but everything i can see points to simple incremental improvements.. call it a C6.8

This sounds like a good argument, however the leaf springs cost more then coil springs.....

The C6 Corvette stood up to the best that the world had to offer, how is that not serious. Actually the areas where the Corvette falls behind happen to be with the areas that have nothing to do with performance. The interior was its biggest short coming, after all I would not call suspension that allowed the Corvette with an engineer to run the ring in 7:19 bad....... You can count the amount of cars that have run faster lap times on one hand....... BTW This Corvette didn't cost $500,000....

I actually agree with Blast....

It seems that every time a new Corvette is coming out everyone wants GM to just build a Ferrari clone. Then you have people bitching that the car doesn't look like a Corvette...... The Corvette community is very schizophrenic in that way.

People want a Ferrari 458 Italia, however they think that just slapping a Chevy badge on it would result in a $50,000 price. They can't seem to understand that the 458 Italia simply can not be built, sold, and sustained at $50,000.

This new C7, the base car will go from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and probably have a top speed around 200MPH. Its probably going to pull 1.0G in base form, and stop from 60MPH in about 100 feet.

This is where I agree with the Germans, some people seem to be obsessed with how the Corvette is made. However at the end of the day its the end results that we are after and the Corvette is a great end result.

The C6 Z06 has in stock form pulled 1.12Gs on a skid pad, name me one production street car that can match that......

[spd98]

Originally Posted by Andonis

Some of the answers because they are more expensive. (W16, gearbox and mid engine layout)
Other answers because not everything that looks to be cutting edge is necessarily better. Nobody said Porsches have the easiest way. Actually Porsche is the one, who CANNOT change because of the conservative customers!!! Porsche wanted to abandon the 911 structure long ago, not to improve it till the end of days.
But it is really hard, they might lose clients.
The 928 was intended to be the successor of the 911. That's why they are really trying to get the Cayman some hype, because they are tired of the 911. Also the Carrera GT and the 918 is exploring new ways (mid). Now they want to move away with the new design language they wish people will embrace. But even the teardrop headlight was a big problem among customers, and the value of the 996 decreased because of this "ïncident".
The smaller Porsche, the Boxster is also an "anything but 911". In the 80s they really wanted to get on new territory with the 944, then 968. So, no Porsche is not really into the 911 layout.
Sometimes they wish they never did it.

Mid engine
Not many have this type of structure (Lamborghini, Ferrari, Pagani, Koenigsegg, Porsche, Bugatti) and there is a reason for that. It is not the GT way. And Corvette is a GT, but performs as a supercar.

If GM wanted a supercar, then we would be talking about MID ENGINE (Indy, CERV, Cien) by now.

This is the same reason why Lexus built the LFA with engine on the front, will build its next top dog also, the Nissan has the GTR, all the Astons are as they are, Maserati as well, and Ferrari also has the 456, 550, 599, F12, FF, Cali...so this is a delicate question. Why isn't the Mercedes SLS, SLR, SL mid engined? Because all these machines are meant to be GTs.
I hope this answers your mid engine Q

As for Corvette design, looks like GM really wants to shift a bit from the target customers to new customers. Look at GTR, Supra, LFA, F12 and you will see what they want.

Engines.
A V6 is a very feasible type of engine, especially with turbos. V8 is a bit bigger, but halfway between the V10 and V12s. A W16 or V16 is only for the show I believe.

Gearbox
Who said manuals are better? It's the classical way, but nowadays the new types shift far faster than any manual. It's just for the feeling and the price. It is cheaper though. But Corvette is not a cheap car, and I have a very strong feeling that by January we'll be looking at the new benchmark in sportscar terms. It will be a GT delivering supercar performance.

I have to be honest with you. I disagree with most of your statment. Engine layout is not necissarily specific to a car being a "GT" or a supercar. The definitions you are ussing are so mix matched and interchangable it's not really even are argument. "GT" and "Supercar" have even been synonyms at times.


If you consider the 458 a supercar, the ZR1 beats it in most performance catagories, regardless of engine layout.

[Andonis]

Originally Posted by spd98

I have to be honest with you. I disagree with most of your statment. Engine layout is not necissarily specific to a car being a "GT" or a supercar. The definitions you are ussing are so mix matched and interchangable it's not really even are argument. "GT" and "Supercar" have even been synonyms at times.


If you consider the 458 a supercar, the ZR1 beats it in most performance catagories, regardless of engine layout.

i dont mind, i know what you mean, and you are probably right.
i dont consider any ferrari (except the F70 or enzo) a supercar. so in this sense you are right. however a gt is something you would take for a long trip. this is the classical definition. a supercar is used nowadays even for a brabus rocket. which in certain terms is a supercar, but not in the way i see.
for me a supercar is something that more or less follows the Miura. but i might be wrong in this, since there is NO actual definition to this term. for instance is has to have V12, it has to carry its engine behind the seats etc.
so what is your alternative?

even so, the zr1 is not a supercar in this sense. the cien is, the indy or cerv III is. but feel free to correct me, like i said i dont mind. im pretty open minded