I loved the looks of the C5 Z06 hardtop plus it helped separate the normal C5's from the Z06's (since I never saw any fixed roof normal C5's). But the C6 Z06 still looks sweet and the hatchback has to be better aerodynamically than the old C5 notchback.

Darth the second I saw this thread title I knew you were gonna bring that up . And I still think that you have a pretty valid argument too.

 

I always thought the C5 FRCs/Z06s were ugly as heck. The lack of the hatch and the shape of the rear just made the whole rear end look huge as hell (and the C5 already had a big ***).

I'm extremely pleased that they stuck with the hatchback for the C6 Z06.

Just saw a nice black standard C6 on the road today and they are dropdead gorgeous IMO, add some fender flares and an extra liter of engine and 100 extra hp of the new Z06 and you've got the sweetest car on the road (that's at least mildly affordable) IMO...

Wish I had a chance of affording one.

 

Lol Mac and cheese for two years? Lucky you.. I was looking at Ramen noodles and saltine crackers for 10 years..

 

...and it espicially matters on the topend. On a certain Doug Rippie's package, you can top out 10mph faster on a hatch then a hardtop on a C5. Also, I think it helps direct the air over the tailend to help with downforce on the rearend at speed.

 

They should have had the flying buttresses off the back glass of the Z06 (both the old and the new) like the ones on the '68 corvette. It wouldn't have added much weight, probably would have helped the aero, would look different and be a hell of a lot cooler than the FRC that the old Z06 was.

 

can you provide a pic werm?
not sure what you're talking about, although i'll search for it on google myself also

 

I never did like the look of the C5 Z06 and notchback coupe. Thank goodness they went with the regular hatchback rear for the new Z06.

Now how about a Z06 convertible????

 

I didn't know it was a hatchback, that's great! I might be looking at getting one when it's used .

 

The reason the fixed-roof notchback coupe failed so miserably is because it was supposed to be significantly less expensive than the hatchback coupe, and it wound up not being so. To justify its existence, they used it as the basis for the Z06. Why spend as much money making those 'extra' body styles?

 

I don't think buttresses are helpful aerodynamically. The C3 had 'em, and it was a nasty brick aero-wise. The vertical backlight is bad news - like my fluid dynamics prof. used to say - "it makes the air angry." Looked like a million bucks, but not a good choice for slipping through a fluid seamlessly.

 

Well, when I say two years... I also mean no cable TV, no cell phone and other non-necessities that add up to a fair chunk of change every month . Asking my fiancee to become a stripper on the side crossed my mind , but I don't think it will fly. Hehe.

 

How long do you guys think it'll take for owners to convert the roof to be removable?

 

Someone asked what a flying buttress looked like...or notchback, or my personal favorite, the sugar scoop...all the same thing.

Best pic I could find on short notice, sorry

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...sPageName=WDVW

 

thanks clean
i was the one who asked
didn't know it was just a notchback though

 

While it is a nice style touch, it sucks when it comes to aero. Remember they made the Charger 500 just to get rid of the recessed glass on the back that killed the aero in NASCAR.