Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

C7 Rear - HERE IT IS!

105K views 313 replies 65 participants last post by  Junkman2008 
#1 ·
This is from the Hi-Po model.

 
See less See more
1
#229 ·
You are correct! :thud:In my percentages I should have said "based those on those that expressed an opinion" which I meant to say but must have been having another Senior Moment. :crazy: Perhaps those of you "waiting to see" are the smartest of all of us and certainly the "safest". But unless you jump in to the fray you'll never feel the sting of the battle. :nuts: Ask "Junk".
 
#226 ·
Dadman1950 said:
They will not be the camaro tail lights, Ward. So tell "the beav" not to worry!

Alright Dadman, I'll take your word on it.


Also, speaking of the Beav...

When I came downstairs this morning for my eggs and bacon,
June asked me..."Ward, don't you think you were a little rough on the Beaver last night?"
And I have to admit, I was.

Regards,
-Ward
 
#241 ·
OK, Let's recap:

Obviously, GM is very guarded about the corvette. They were very upset when the Jalopnik rendering came out, but realized there was nothing they could do about it at the time, so they issued a statement declaring it was not the C7. We see new renderings and design images almost every week. The Jalopnik rendering was the only rendering for which GM has ever issued an official statement denying it is the C7. Motor Trend just printed their (completely wrong) rendering and MT is a much bigger player than Jalopnik. GM ignored the MT rendering.

Patrick and others had seen the C7 PRIOR to the posting of the Jalopnik renderings and after the posting confirmed Jalopnik.

Omega Tooling, in a colossal screw up, labeled a promotional video as C6 when it was actually CAD and pics of the C7 tooling for the front and rear fascia. Shown clearly in the video, is the actual metal tooling for the rear fascia as it was being machined. GM and Omega immediately tried to pull the video back - even issued threatening communications. Following this debacle, GM sent terse, even threatening communications to all of the key C7 suppliers about plugging leaks and being more guarded about C7 information.

Whether independently or just copying Jalopnik is unknown, but Car & Driver has printed their own renderings of the rear and side of the C7 that agree with Jalopnik. Autoweek and Automobile have also published other renderings that agree with Jalopnik.

Although we have yet to see a naked C7 spy pic, we have seen parts of the C7 naked in the spy pics. We know the the mirrors, the wheels, the side window on the B pillar, the shape of the hatch, and much of the the rear fascia (exhaust surround & outer edge vents) on the Spy Pics are all as Jalopnik presents them. We know there is nothing in any of the spy pics that is in direct conflict with the Jalopnik renderings.

We know someone on another forum posted a LOT of detailed information about the C7 (some info consistent with rumors we've heard) in addition to several CAD drawings, citing an inside source. The CAD of the rear is in agreement with the Jalopnik renderings. Soon after the CAD drawings were posted, they were pulled and there were no more posts from that person. Clearly the result of the wrath of GM.

For those of us who have known Patrick f(the founder of DC) or many years, we needed no proof beyond his statement that the Jalopnik rendering is the high performance C7 model that he has seen. To us, the rest is simply gravy.

If you choose not to believe that the Jalopnik rendering is an accurate, fairly detailed depiction of the C7, that is your choice. Come 1/13/13 you will see that all of the evidence above (and more) is correct .... not some elaborate concoction costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions spent to mislead or misdirect.
 
#244 ·
Longtimer, all very true... back in 1997. The process has been streamlined much better now then it was back then. No miracles of course, we are still talking about GM, but it has been improved. And if GM wants/needs something fast tracked, they have the resources to do so. I completely agree that it is not a simple and fast process, and the more complicated or extensive the change, the more complicated and time consuming the process of making the change. But tail lights and/or the rear fascia is not a major change. A year is enough time, as long as they wanted it done and pushed it through. And we do not know if the "they'll get over it" comment was actually in line with what they really feel. Maybe it was spin, maybe it was a foot-in-mouth moment just from that particular person, we don't know right now, but we'll know in January.

Oh, and here's another theory. The renderings and Omega video shows that the lights are/were designed as a bezel assembly, and that the Jalopnik rendering is based on what the hi-po version is supposed to look like. Remember the bitching about the C4 ZR1; how people didn't like that it looked too much like the standard version for the cost premium? What if they intend, at least as of then, to have a more traditional looking assembly for the base version and those ridiculous things are/were meant to be one of the things to differentiate the base car from the hi-po car? That, as well as the export market would make a bezel style design make a lot of sense. Just another 2 cents. :cheers:
 
#245 ·
Oh, and here's another theory. The renderings and Omega video shows that the lights are/were designed as a bezel assembly, and that the Jalopnik rendering is based on what the hi-po version is supposed to look like. Remember the bitching about the C4 ZR1; how people didn't like that it looked too much like the standard version for the cost premium? What if they intend, at least as of then, to have a more traditional looking assembly for the base version and those ridiculous things are/were meant to be one of the things to differentiate the base car from the hi-po car? That, as well as the export market would make a bezel style design make a lot of sense. Just another 2 cents. :cheers:
Yep, that occurred to me too. I think I posted a rump roast rendering long ago with round lenses and Chris applied some round lenses in place of the entire bezel shape, wiping out the tear drops. Much better looking IMO.

Alternative Bezels & lenses are a possibility but not alternatively designed rear fascias, IMO. Far too costly for the low production Vette & Z??. Therefore, the bezel shape must be consistent with that of the Jalopnik rendering of the Z??, the Omega Tooling, and the CAD pic we've seen. You can't just erase those tear drops at the outside corners of the bezels. Welburn and Peters have burned those into all C7s IMO. To try to cover them with something body colored would look almost as bad and cheap up close as the tear drops themselves.

I tried to create a bezel in paint that would fit in the footprint of the camaro-ized HP bezel but have more traditional taillights. But the only thing that will work is either little tiny circle lenses or VERY low, wide oval shapes. Given that tear drop shaped bezel, both are extremely inconsistent with the rest of the fascia "design." Completely round taillights would be just too small for decent illumination. The ovals might illuminate reasonbly well, but would immediately recall the C5 and would not match the "theme" of the rear fascia design.

All of the above that is not fact (lots of facts there), is my opinion. I donnot pretend to speak for the entire forum, any group of likeminded members or anyone else.
 
#248 ·
From Longtimer >>
Obviously, GM is very guarded about the corvette. They were very upset when the Jalopnik rendering came out, but realized there was nothing they could do about it at the time, so they issued a statement declaring it was not the C7. We see new renderings and design images almost every week. The Jalopnik rendering was the only rendering for which GM has ever issued an official statement denying it is the C7. Motor Trend just printed their (completely wrong) rendering and MT is a much bigger player than Jalopnik. GM ignored the MT rendering.

Patrick and others had seen the C7 PRIOR to the posting of the Jalopnik renderings and after the posting confirmed Jalopnik.
<<

Thank you Longtimer. That is the first time I have seen a complete statement as to who if anyone has in fact seen the car and also a recap of the how some of the information got out. I appreciate the facts in your post and it gives me a better understanding of where some are coming from.:thumbsup:
Nevertheless I am still staying with my thoughts on the rear design.
I know very well what it takes to get a car into production at GM and not from reading the book All Corvettes are Red which I have read more than once. :surprised
 
#256 ·
I think from the CAD renderings that you can also say that there might be some different lower valence treatment on different models. It appears to be 2 pieces so you could keep the upper but change the lower center area around the exhaust without a lot of added cost. GM has done simular things on cars in the past.

I expect the final version to look better than the renderings just due to the angles and the dimensions being slightly off. But the truth is that it still won't be drastically different. The car is DONE. They are on final calibrations now. CTF cars will be next if they are not already aout there.
 
#259 ·
Kirk Bennion - Exterior Design Manager C7. Certainly the buck stops at Welburn's and Tadge's desk, but this is the guy who "managed" the exterior lines. "Form follows function," said Bennion in the promo. Then three successive screens showing "EVERY" then "LINE" then "MATTERS." To me this is an odd message to try to convey about a design that is cluttered with unneccessary and oddly placed lines.

 
#260 ·
Kirk Bennion - Exterior Design Manager C7. Certainly the buck stops at Welburn's and Tadge's desk, but this is the guy who "managed" the exterior lines. "Form follows function," said Bennion in the promo. Then three successive screens showing "EVERY" then "LINE" then "MATTERS." To me this is an odd message to try to convey about a design that is cluttered with unneccessary and oddly placed lines.
Cluttered and oddly placed, in your opinion....:spanked:

I guess we'll find out for sure in 6 weeks or so. Renderings and CAD drawings, no matter how well done, CANNOT fully describe reality.:cheers:
 
#267 ·
After looking closely at the cad drawings, I think that the rear lights might turn out alright after all. Especially when looking Camaro lights at night.

I think that the cad drawings illustrate a red, led plastic type, perimeter light. Imagine a red "halo" effect. Yes, they represent the overall appearance of the camaro. kind of keeping with a theme. The Camaro's tail lights illuminate round, or like some half moon at night.

Look again at the cad drawings and imagine the red being a glowing lens or the shape itself actually illuminating. If that is not what they are, then I might just have to start making them.

It would be really cool and upscale!

Randy
 
#283 ·
With all the ugly ass being shown in this thread, it's time for me to save it. I present one of my asses. If only GM could implement something like this!



And now, back to your regularly scheduled program... :D
 
#282 ·
Ah, NO "Pal" you didn't and you seem to choose not to.

You who accuse ME of picking at posts like they do on CF.

Interesting.

"..a lot of real vetters" does not imply a majority, a minority or anything other than a significant amount of that group. Yes, I believe a significant amount of real vetters will not buy a C7 because they don't like it.

"real vetters" means all current corvette enthusiasts. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
#285 ·
Real Vetters actually suggests that some are not "real". I'm just interested in learn the benchmark. I imagine there are significant numbers of site members who have not purchased a Corvette yet

Does this make them any less "real"? Or does you comment suggest that a person who does like and may choose to purchase a C7 is less of a "vetter"?

This implication seems "real".
 
#288 ·
Speaking of rears...

A cursory Google image search on tail lights reveals many shapes and styles among revered collector and super cars.

The Camaro has had round lights and rectangular lights...the Vette has had round, oblong, oval and squarish.

I guess my point is that tail light shape is not consistent among models, and the new bezel, as much as we may dislike it, doesn't in my opinion break any traditional design themes. At times the Vette and Camaro lights are indistinguishable (1970) for the same model year.

The angular rear lines are a definite carry-over from the Sideswipe, and GM would have really hit the nail on the head with fewer lines and a little more curve. And GM isn't the only one who hands over design to those who dream fugly.

The Lamborghini Gallardo has one of the ugliest asses in automotive history...as does the Ferrari F12 Berlinetta and the Enzo. You'll never hear Europeans bitch about the ass of a Ferrari. What do you mean the Emperor wears no clothes?
And they will have a heyday with the new Vette rear.
 
#289 ·
You obviously haven't looked at one drawing of the C7 rear if you feel this way. At one glance, it immediately screamed fifth generation Camaro to everyone who saw it. Whether people liked it or not, that was the consensus. You are obviously trying to ignore that fact.
 
#290 ·
Speaking of the Europens, when Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear shows a Corvette, he always pushes in the rear bumper and makes a comment about how it flexes... a silly thing to do since it's supposed to flex... but maybe GM designers took it to heart and made it look more european so that Clarkson wouldn't complain... it will be interesting to see whay he has to say about it.... given our opinions.... not that i give a **** what he has to say... but interested none the less.
 
#301 ·
It IS linear in this respect. But FWIW, part of the reason the 61 and 62 had the boat tail is that they new what the 63 was going to look like already. They applied a similar tail to the late C1's, removed the cove trim and added the rocker panel trim to the 62, so the transition was less abrupt.
 
#300 ·
Ward Cleaver said:
I wouldn't call it "leading in styling cues" if it has tail lights which remind people of the Camaro every time they see them.
DadMan1950 said:
They will not be Camaro tail lights, Ward.


DadMan1950 said:
I said it before and I'll say it again they will not be Camaro lights! Remember where you heard it!

DadMan1950 said:
Until I see the car and not a conceptualized drawing I will stay with my prediction.

I haven't seen a post from the DadMan since the C7 was unveiled.

DadMan...are you there??

Regards,
-Ward
 
#306 ·
Spirited thread

This is definitely a "spirited" thread! I like it!

Love or hate it the new C7 is the new Corvette. I am a HUGE Corvette fan. I have had a 53, 57, 59, 66, 67, 69 and and 02 and I can't wait to add a 14 to the list. It is an amazing car! The only model I didn't care for was the C4 so i didn't get one and you don't have to get a C7 either. :)

Could the backend be better... sure. But it looks really good.

Does it look like a Camaro? NO


Should it look like this to me?


yeh maybe.

But I am still going to get one and every day when I go to get it in, it will be like Christmas all over again. Just like every Vette I have ever driven :)
 
#307 ·
johnb21 said:
I am a HUGE Corvette fan...I didn't care for the C4...
If you didn't care for 13 model years of a car, I wouldn't consider that being a "HUGE" fan of the car. ;)


johnb21 said:
Could the backend be better... sure.

Should it look like this to me?

(Photoshopped picture of a C7 with round tail lights).

Yeah maybe.
What I find amusing with the C7 is that even among the guys who profess to like it...a large percentage of those guys are making comments about the rear end, showing that they're really not fond of it. I've heard several of them say they hope the rear end will "grow" on them.

A Corvette is a total package of aesthetics, performance, and iconic American tradition.
Regardless of how well the car might perform, if the rear end does not have pleasing Corvette aesthetics (and many, including myself, and even potential buyers, don't think it does), then I wouldn't be paying GM money to buy one.
I only need to go from 0 to 60 on a public street, or around a curve, so fast, so dynamics other than just mechanical performance would have to come into play to get me to pay GM money for a C7 and take a trip to Louisville to pick it up...knowing that about half the other drivers on the road during the drive home would be thinking to themselves how my new Corvette looks somewhat like a "Corvaro."

I can't imagine what it would be like to buy a brand new car...yet wishing one entire aspect of the body was different...and then looking out the window at it in the driveway every day and going out to the garage to look at it every evening in hopes that this certain aspect of the body would "grow" on me, and trying to convince myself that I actually like how it looks.

Regards,
-Ward
 
#308 ·
...knowing that about half the other drivers on the road during the drive home would be thinking to themselves how my new Corvette looks somewhat like a Corvaro
I wouldn't know this, I don't believe this, and frankly don't care if someone thought this. Anyone who buys a car like this, and does it with a concern for how others feel about it, is doing it for the wrong reason, IMO.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top