I don't understand why everyone is getting bent out of shape over the fixed headlamps on the C6. The entire C1 line had exposed headlamps, so it's not like GM is suddenly committing heresy. Should we also go back to chrome bumpers? Whitewall tires? Carburetors? GM is trying to evolve and improve the car and we should be welcoming their efforts. If every time they redesigned a car they were afraid to break any paradigms or try something different, then what's the point? If GM doesn't try to advance the state of their art then the competition is going to leave them in their dust.

 

No.... but they should go back to the 427 ci Big Block.

 

I agree... but somethings become tradition.

Quad taillamps were not on the Corvette it's whole life either, but they will likely never go away... it's become an important part of the "Corvette Look".... so has concealed headlamps, IMO.

And your arguement is a little backwards... You say a reason not to be upset is that C1 had fixed headlamps... then go on and say "Should we also go back to chrome bumpers? Whitewall tires? Carburetors? GM is trying to evolve and improve the car and we should be welcoming their efforts. "

Anyway, I don't see how retaining concealed headlamps of some kind would have the compitition leave Corvette "in the dust"...

 

I was arguing from two slightly different viewpoints and I guess I wasn't clear that they were two separate points. On one hand I'm saying that you can't say "don't use fixed headlamps because it's a tradition", because fixed headlamps have not always been a Vette tradition. But I was also trying to say that even if fixed headlamps were a tradition, we shouldn't be unequivocally holding up all traditions as sacred cows anyhow.

Maybe not buy themselves, but it all adds up. Especially if you read All Corvettes are Red, you'll recall how the engineers would fight tooth and nail to save every ounce possible. Retractable headlamps are significantly heavier than fixed, and they also add cost, complexity, take up more room, and are often a reliabiltiy headache. In return they provide virtually no benefit other than styling.

Despite all that, I agree that popup headlights look better more often than not. I just think that sometimes compromises have to be made.

 

OK, I see where you are coming from...

I agree the designers shouldn't be 'hampered down'... to a point... a Corvette needs to look like a Corvette... even an all-new one... I don't know wthat this will happen with fixed headlamps. I won't pass total judgement yet, because I obviously havent seen the finished product yet....... but...... I am nervous. Very Very Nervous.


I am actually right now in the process of reading All Corvettes Are Red for the second time... I agree... Team Corvette goes to a lot of lengths to try and save weight.... but, as you say in your next quote, "sometimes compromises have to be made." And sometimes those compromses should be on the side of styling. Styling , in any car, is the first thing that 99% of the buyers look at and consider.


Add to that, I don't think 'consealed headlamps' need to 'pop up' either... a shuttered design would likely weight less. and wouldn't have to move as heavy a part either (just the shutter, not the entire headlamp assembly)... therefore a lighter duty motor could be used. which may weight less.

Imagine a fixed headlamps with an 'eyelid' of sorts that would slide over it.... something like that anyway.

I think the designers should take the trademark Corvette hidden headlamps and get creative with it... not eliminate it and give it fixed headlamps like leterally every other car on the market.

 

In the words of a dear friend of mine...
Just say NO to retro

J/K with you dude! I know where your coming from.
I think the '66-'68 was a good starting place for the '05 Muskrat too, and NO, I don't think the new one looks like a carbon copy of the old ones either. I'm sure you don't want the next Vette to look just like the old Sting-III design either, but the general formula and proportions are there and you can visually connect the two - new and old, right?

I agree, I'd like to see the next gen Corvettes go way into the future as trendsetters, yet pay homage to where they started out from. There's actually very little on the C6 spy shots I've seen that remotely resemble the C1 or even C2 cars IMO. I'm not saying that's not a BAD thing now, I'm just making a generic observation/statement.

I'm with you on this one.

 

So they add a little cost... to a limited production, $55,000, specialty 2-seater?!?!
I don't think the Vette buyer is as concerned about cost and utility as the average soccer mom.

Same goes with complexity... the Vette is the technological building platform for GM/Chevy. On board computer/diagnostics, engine control systems, run-flat/real-time tire pressure guaging, etc - I'd say technical complexity is a trademark of the modern Vette, not something it avoids.

The type of reasoning in your statement above is almost a given for any other car made, but I don't think they apply so well to the Corvette - at least in general. Now SURE, the bean-counters are going to want to get costs as low as possible and leave MSRP where it is to get an extra penny in the bank, but history suggests the buyer and the engineers are not motivated in like form IMO.

Again, great points, and I totally agree with the material therein (especially the reliability/headache part), but this is the Vette we're talking about this time - a little different beast than the normal production car.

 

Okay, struts I'll grant you. However ask most stang guys which sort of rear suspension they prefer and the ones that care enough to know will prefer a live rear axle.

Despite its knuckle dragging nature and horse buggy lienage. The perception is (right or wrong), live rear axles are tough, cheap and easy to modify as well as being good for drag racing which is mostly what resides on the minds of performance minded mustang enthusiasts.

Simply put, if Ford had said that they were only going to build independant rear suspensions on the 05 mustang. it would have likely gone over as well as when they said the FWD probe was going to be the next mustang.

As for the strut front end, yeah an SLA would have been nice, but big friggin deal. The rumor was that the 4.6 couldn't fit in the DEW chassis with the SLA and the only option was to use the 3.9 that comes in the LS and T-bird. Nobody wanted a 3.9 rice liter V-8 in a mustang. So that and probably familarity with the strut front suspension was enough to keep the faithful from pitching a fit.

Didn't mean to derail the thread on an 5th gen camaro, but the statment made it seem like ford force fed mustang guys something they really didn't want when really it is pretty much the basic chassis they wanted.