Whatever comes into the head of a 25-year journalist/libertarian-conservative/Christian husband, father, Eagle Scout and aficionado of obscure rock music. Opinions herein expressed are only mine and not necessarily those of any past, present or potential future family member, employer, friend, neighbor, church member, etc.
According to the study, “Young people aged 16 to 34 drove 23 percent fewer miles on average in 2009 than they did in 2001 — a greater decline in driving than any other age group. The severe economic recession was likely responsible for some of the decline, but not all.”
The study posits that millenials would rather Tweet than drive, and would rather live in an urban setting with mass transit than commute in from the suburbs.
When you read between the lines, the Frontier/PIRG study is a clear call for investing less in freeways and main arteries, and a call for more subways and light rail. …
But the biggest problem with the survey is its basic psychographic misunderstanding: Young people do care about cars. They just haven’t had to.
Either unemployed or underemployed, many Gen Y college grads have moved back home with their helicopter parents who have resumed their role as their childrens’ personal taxi services. Gen Ys can’t afford cars, but they can afford iPhones.
At some point, however, the economy will improve. Recent grads will get real jobs, have boyfriends and girlfriends, and realize that having mom chauffeur a date to see Vampire Weekend isn’t cool when you’re 25.
Then there’s the marriage factor. Even if millenials can afford that cool 600-square-foot artist’s loft close to the subway station, it won’t fit a family, and it’s in a cruddy, crowded neighborhood with a lousy school district.
Gen Y will enter suburban life — it’s a demographic certainty. Kicking and screaming, the last bohemians of Gen Y will realize the car has changed from being an unneeded luxury to an absolute necessity. …
The same day that the Frontier/PIRG study came out, Edmunds.com released its own findings about Gen Y buyers.
“With higher unemployment, lower income and a greater propensity to live at home than previous generations at this age, it hardly comes as a surprise that these younger adults have failed to buy new cars at the same rate as their predecessors,” Edmunds chief economist Lacey Plache wrote.
Rechtin points out that since 1956, vehicle miles driven have tracked growth, or lack thereof, in the gross domestic product. If driving is or has decreased, it’s because of the (still) crappy economy, with a major assist to gas prices nearing $4 per gallon once again.
I have written a lot in this space about the Corvette. (And by the way, my birthday is one month from today.)
The Corvette is a car that by conventional business standards probably should have been discontinued after its third year, when just 700 of them were sold. But 1955 was the year the Corvette got an actual engine, Chevy’s first V-8, after it got an engineer who actually cared about the car, Zora Arkus-Duntov.
The rest, as they say, is history. Except that GM’s other divisions wanted Corvettes too, or at least cars like Corvettes — two-seat sports, or sporty, cars. (Well, except GMC, although one could easily put together a two-seat pickup truck with a big V-8 and manual transmission. Styling might leave something to be desired, though, but imagine the cargo space.)
Every other GM division apparently got the two-seat bug in 1954. The list begins with the Pontiac Bonneville Special …
… powered by a bored-out Pontiac straight-eight.
One of the remaining Specials sold for $2.8 million. That is not a misprint.
That same year, Oldsmobile trotted out its own two-seat concept, the F-88.
The F-88 was designed the same time as the initial Corvette, but was powered by an Olds V-8 of 250 horsepower, 100 more than the initial Corvette six. After it appeared in GM’s Motorama, it became the personal transportation of the legendary Harley Earl, GM’s chief designer of the time. One of its duties was to represent GM at the grand opening of Road America in Elkhart Lake in 1955.
The lone surviving F-88, by the way, sold at an auction for $3.24 million. That is not a misprint.
Buick’s contribution was the Wildcat II, slightly smaller than the Corvette, and again with a stronger motor, a Buick 322 V-8.
The Wildcat is in the foreground; the F-88 is in the background.
Cadillac had multiple efforts at its own two-seater. In 1954 Cadillac unveiled the El Camino coupe …
… both powered by Caddy V-8s. Each was 200 inches long, or a full two feet longer than the same year Corvette, so they weren’t intended as Corvette competitors, but they weren’t designed for production either.
Cadillac LaSalle II coupe concept
One year later Cadillac created two LaSalle II concepts — the pictured roadster and a four-door with suicide doors, a few inches longer than the ’55 Vette. The engine was an experimental aluminum V-6. The first GM V-6 was in a Buick nearly a decade later, and by the time Cadillac got a V-6, well, recall the difference between wanting something and finally getting it.
None of these cars reached production; none was ever intended to reach production. The Bonneville became the top-of-the-line Pontiac (my mother-in-law owns the last Bonneville); the Wildcat became a sporty full-size Buick; the El Camino became, of course, a Chevy cartruck, or “coupe utility”; and despite numerous proposals, Cadillac never used the name “LaSalle” for one of its models.
That more or less ended Olds’ and Buick’s attempts at Corvette-style cars. A decade later, however, Pontiac put together a car smaller than the Corvette, powered by Pontiac’s overhead-cam six, the Banshee. Motor Trend Classic sets the scene:
Imagine yourself as the general manager of Chevrolet in 1966. You’re at the wheel of the largest division of General Motors, with total passenger car production in excess of 2 million units under your watch. Things are good, right? Not so fast. In 1966, Chevrolet was taking a beating on several fronts, and there was a sense that the competition was beginning to eat USA-1′s lunch. The greatest hit came from Ford’s Mustang. Without any direct competing model to consider (the Camaro was still a year away), a million Mustang buyers skipped past Chevy showrooms, where boxy Chevy II Novas and reputation-tarnished Corvairs were the only lines of defense.
In this context of mounting hostility from Ford and the rest of Detroit, the last thing Chevy wanted was more competition from within General Motors. And that seems to be where the story of the Pontiac XP-833 begins — and ends.
The sleek silver two-seat Banshee sports car on display was poised to enter production in 1966, but obviously never reached that goal. Some say its demise was a direct result of complaints from Chevrolet that it would bite deeply into Corvette sales. That assumption makes sense in light of the fact the XP-833 was a fiberglass-bodied two-seater, just like the Corvette. And with annual Corvette sales in the low 20,000-unit range, there wasn’t much room for competition.
This car was at an Iola Old Car Show during a tribute to Pontiac (R.I.P.). It is smaller than any Corvette, and powered by a six, not a V-8. John DeLorean (yes, that John DeLorean) headed Pontiac at the time.
Should the Corvette team have been frightened by Pontiac’s proposed lower-cost sports car? The likely answer is yes. While it would have snared a good number of potential Mustang buyers, its similar theme would have also been attractive to the lower end of the Corvette buyer demographic. Adding the XP-833 to Pontiac showrooms nationwide, especially at the height of GTO mania, would have resulted in excitement you could have seen from outer space. And with the possibility of options like disc brakes, performance-suspension goodies, and that big 421 riding the XP-833′s miniscule 91-inch wheelbase, maybe the 427 Corvette (half a foot longer) wouldn’t have seemed so hot after all.And so it was when DeLorean, [Pontiac engineer Bill] Collins, and the rest of the team unveiled the XP-833 to top GM executives in mid-1965. Permission and funding for further development were denied; the XP-833 program was over. …
The Banshee offers a rare glimpse of what might have been. And if any comparison to the nearly 66,000 Solstices sold between 2006 and 2009 can be made, perhaps Pontiac’s concept of an affordable two-seat sports car wasn’t off base after all.
The Solstice, and the companion Saturn Sky, were smaller-than-Corvette two-seaters. There was, however, a Cadillac “Corvette,” the XLR, built on the Corvette platform, but with the 32-valve Northstar V-8 (and, disgracefully, an automatic) instead of the Corvette small-block. Where the Corvette has sold in the tens of thousands every year, the XLR sold in the thousands.
Before that was the Cadillac Allanté, another two-seater that was more like a Mercedes–Benz SL than a sports car.
So why did the Corvette avoid inside-GM competition, let alone GM’s usual badge engineering? Part of it was perhaps corporate politics. Corvette has always had high-level backers within GM’s Byzantine management structure. Part of it also was perhaps GM’s realization of how much money the Corvette, even with five-figure yearly production levels, made for GM, and GM was therefore reluctant to create an in-house competitor that wouldn’t have necessarily made more money for GM.
Chevrolet (which was purchased by GM 95 years ago yesterday) has always been the most-things-to-most-buyers division of GM. The 6,000 or so Chevy dealers in the late 1970s sold everything from the minicompact Chevette to the land yacht Caprice, plus trucks and SUVs. The Corvette by rights should have been built by Pontiac, the “excitement division” (though it wasn’t when the Corvette was built), or even Cadillac for exclusivity. It’s been suggested more than once that Corvette should be split off into its own division. (Only about one-third of Chevy dealers are reportedly getting the new Corvette.)
The other reason is that, for all the occasional criticism of way-out-there styling (the C3), the Vette’s being more expensive than other Chevys, and Chevy’s refusal to green-light a mid-engine Corvette, Chevy actually got the Corvette right as an affordable (by the standards of the genre) supercar. Consider this from Corvette Online:
Some interesting facts:
Most expensive Corvette in constant dollars? The 1989 C4, at $59,216
Least expensive? $24,004 for the 1954 Corvette
Over its lengthy run, the MSRP of the C3 nearly quadrupled, and even adjusted for inflation, it still rose more than $10,000
The switch between C3 and C4 saw the biggest run up in real cost, jumping 15.5% from 1982 to 1984
On average, the adjusted cost of buying a Corvette has gone down since the dawn of the C4 era, from the mid-$56,000 range to $51k for the C6
If not for Zora Arkus-Duntov, who turned the Corvette into an actual sports car, and Bill Mitchell, who designed the most recognizable Corvettes, perhaps the Corvette would have died after a few years. Or perhaps the Corvette would have died after faring badly against inside-GM competition. Instead, the Corvette remains America’s sports car.
Envision this: You’re the editor of Motor Trend. And, naturally, you have lots of friends in automotive journalism. You see them at industry events, major auto shows, and press launches of important new vehicles, typically at exotic locations here in the U.S. and overseas. Now imagine inviting those friends to a bar after the first day of the New York auto show in April with these words: “Let’s design a dream car.” You’ll build a driveable version in less than six months, in time to be unveiled on a turntable in Los Angeles in November.
Sound improbable? Of course. But, believe it or not, this scenario transpired 45 years ago. Instead of New York, it was in London, England. The publication was The Daily Telegraph Magazine, and the editor was John Anstey. The car was a collaboration among auto journalists, Anstey, Jaguar, and the design house of Bertone, and was known as the 1967 Jaguar Bertone Pirana Coupe.
In March 1967, the increasingly powerful Anstey cooked up another wild scheme to promote his weekend magazine, gathering a group of motoring writers at that year’s Geneva motor show and asking them, in effect, “If you could build your dream car, what would it be?” The group of motoring scribes examined what was then the state-of-the-art in automotive design, culling elements from Aston Martin, Ferrari, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Lotus, and Maserati to come up with their ideal 2+2 Grand Touring coupe. But this was no mere pipe dream. After pushing the magazine’s senior management, Anstey actually obtained the budget to push the “dream coupe” vision forward. What’s more, he had the audacity to promise delivery of an actual car in just six months.
Sad to say, no such scenario presented itself when I was a business magazine editor. But the concept of this story was so captivating that I decided to create my own 2+2 as the one-man design team.
That, however, got waylaid by another idea — to create the ultimate sport utility vehicle. Not something like a Cadillac Escalade or Lincoln Navigator, but the original intention of the British Land Rover Range Rover — a vehicle that farmers could use for their daily work and take the family somewhere for the weekend. So it needs to be on- and off-road capable, but not Spartan.
Range Rover, you ask? According to Range Rover Classic, the original Range Rover was designed as a “Four-In-One car” …
”A luxury car”
”A performance car”
”An estate car”
”A cross country car”
… or, put another way in brochures …
“It is a seven-days-a-week luxury motor car for all business, social and domestic purposes.”
“It is a leisure vehicle that will range far and wide on the highways and noways of the world in pursuit of its owner’s activities and interests.”
“It is a high-performance car for long distance travel in the grand manner.”
“It is a working cross-country vehicle with a payload capacity of 1200 lb.”
… all by the definitions of 1970 Great Britain. (An “estate car” there is a station wagon here, but you knew that.) Today’s definition of “luxury motor car” generally does not include nonexistent air conditioning, rudimentary carpeting or a lack of automatic transmission choice, but none of those were available on the original Range Rover. Nor were four doors, until 1982.
I assume the Range Rover was developed because of a lack of British pickup truck tradition. In part for that reason, the Range Rover got some interesting uses:
The Range Rover became very popular as a police vehicle to patrol motorways (“freeways” over here).
Fire truck. Notice the extra rear axle.
Think of this as the six-wheel Vista Cruiser edition.
Before the Nissan Murano convertible SUV, there was …
The other inspiration is the Mercedes–Benz Geländewagen, developed by, of all people, the Shah of Iran. So obviously it had some military uses:
Canadian military, with the roof machine gun option.
Norwegian military.
Also with six wheels.
We’ll call our SUV the Cross Country, the former name of Rambler station wagons in the 1960s, because this SUV is intended to meet that purpose. What I have in mind bridges the gap between SUV and truck (with a specific retro design feature in mind), for those who might need either at some point.
(Unfortunately, since I can’t really draw, I have to describe, instead of show, what I have in mind.)
One goal here is to offer a few choices for the buyer. You can buy a Chevrolet Suburban, Ford Expedition or Jeep Grand Cherokee with any engine and transmission combination you like, as long as it’s a gas engine attached to an automatic transmission. GM and Ford no longer build pickups with manual transmissions, and the only Dodge — I mean Ram — you can buy with a proper transmission is the 3500 attached to a Cummins diesel.
The gas motor choice is GM’s LS3 E-Rod V-8, which is rated at 430 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. Why 430 horsepower in an SUV? That’s 20 fewer horsepower than the answer-in-search-of-a-question Lamborghini LM002, the 12-cylinder four-door pickup.
The diesel choice is the Navistar Maxxforce 7, which has 300 horsepower and 660 pound-feet of torque. (The diesel was formerly used in Ford Super Duty pickups until Ford designed its own diesel. Having driven a Maxxforce-equipped moving truck, I am much more impressed with Navistar engines than with, say, Isuzu diesels.)
The manual transmission would be the ZF 6S700, which offers a low first gear and an overdrive sixth. The automatic would also be from ZF, the AS Tronic 700.
The Cross County would be a four-wheel-drive, not all-wheel-drive, vehicle most likely, for heavier-duty truck-like uses. I think independent front and rear suspension works better for handling, with (based on the Range Rover) lots of suspension travel built in, and, borrowing from the Corvette, magnetic shock absorbers with adjustable stiffness control inside the Cross Country.
Inside would have the usual SUV accouterments (air, stereo/navigation system, sunroof), with the extra proviso of a lot of gauges, which are always preferable to idiot lights. (The first Range Rovers had just a speedometer, fuel gauge and temperature gauge; the lack of tachometer is strange for a manual-transmission-only vehicle).
About that design feature: The first Range Rovers and G-wagons were two-doors. Four-doors are all they sell now. (G-wagons were available in two- and four-door versions and as convertibles.) You’d probably want at least an option for a third row of seats. But, you think to yourself, how do you get the utility of a pickup truck and the seating capacity of an SUV?
My first idea was to adapt the sliding roof design of the Studebaker Wagonaire and the GMC Envoy XUV. Those were huge failures in the marketplace, which is why despite seeming like a good idea, it apparently isn’t.
The roof of the first two generations (this is a 1977) of Chevrolet Blazers was removable.
The same was the case with the first Dodge Ramchargers. That, I think, solves the pickup-vs.-SUV issue. If you need the extra space, take off the top.
This is not a post about the Dodge Viper. (Although I do know a Viper owner.)
This is about a car that could have predated not just the Viper, but the 1955 Ford Thunderbird (briefly Ford’s Corvette), and been a competitor to the first Corvette, from Jalopnik and Hemmings:
While some call it the Dodge Storm or a Bertone, it is actually the Zeder Z-250 (just when you thought Nissan made “Z” cars). The sports car was created by Fred Zeder Jr., son of Frederick Zeder of The Three Musketeers, the engineering team that started the Chrysler Corporation. …
Zeder’s idea was that two cars should be made using a common platform: a two seater race car with a fiber glass body weighting only 150 pounds, and a luxurious aluminum coupe. The bodies were to be easily swappable by using four rubber-bushed nuts, where the performance remained the same in both forms. The Z-250 used a modified version of the Dodge HEMI V8 truck engine, which produced 260 horsepower and about 330 ft-lbs of torque according to this article. That propelled the car from 0-60 mph in about 7.5 seconds, and the quarter mile took just 14.7 seconds. Other parts like the brakes, radiator, clutch, steering, rear axle, fuel tank and electronics came from the shelves of Plymouth and Dodge. The rest like the tube space frame, the suspension and the two bodies were unique to the car, while the transmission was a brand new unit developed by the Spicer Division of Dana Corporation. …
In April 1954, Fred took his pride (now called the Storm Z-250) to Chrysler’s design headquarters in Hamtramck. After his father’s death, his uncle Jim Zeder became the Chief Engineer. He was trained for years by the old trio to not be supportive when it came to new ideas. He borrowed the car so Chrysler could evaluate it, but instead he locked it up in the factory’s storage for two years, under which nobody was supposed to touch or even mention the car. …
Fred’s guess was that Jim feared he wouldn’t get any credit if it succeeded, but would take the heat if it failed. The official reason was that the car was too expensive to produce in order to sell it in profitable quantities. By the time Fred got back his car, people were driving Corvettes and brand new Ford Thunderbirds, not to mention Nash-Healeys, Kaiser-Darrins, and Cunninghams on the tracks. Just like the Oldsmobile or Pontiac “Corvettes,” Chrysler’s was killed as well before it could prove itself.
Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of “zero emissions,” and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. …
For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it’s a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio’s ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don’t contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don’t emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.
A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.
To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: “Don’t Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much.”
If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.
The outstanding Art and Colour Cars blog, which contributed to my popular (as in more than 2,800 views) Cadillac piece, improved the rear view of the C7.
The Split-Window is Back! For my take on the new C7 Corvette Stingray I went backwards in time a bit. To begin with I restored its traditional four round taillights. I gave it a much more traditional greenhouse rather than the new car’s first time and rather forced rear quarter windows. I also added a thin central paint-colored spine to the hatchglass, following the existing indented roof panel. I also edited the side vents so they’d fit better with the last several generations. Detail changes include moving the new Stingray logo to the B pillar and flattened out the new “winged” crossed flags
It’s not clear to me why rear quarter windows are a good idea on a two-seat car. I understand why the ’63 split-window C2 is so popular, because it was found only on the ’63 Vettes. Of course, there’s a reason only the ’63 Vettes had a split rear window — drivers couldn’t see out the back. Now, though, with the ability to use opaque-on-the-outside tinted-from-the-inside window coverings, this might make sense.
For my second take on the C7, I decided to keep the idea of a rear quarter window, but I reshaped it into a much simpler graphic. By bringing this new side window to a point, I referenced the Corvette supercar prototype from the 1970s, the mid-engined 4-Rotor.At the back I created a set of aluminum-ringed quad circular taillight and replaced the new “V” crossed flags emblem with a “proper” set of flags from ’72 ‘Vette. I cut down on the visual height of the bodysides by using another ’70s styling trick: Argent colored rocker panels. The cool new Stingray logo has been moved to the B pillar when it’s noticeable every time you open the door.
The aforementioned rear quarter window is a clever tribute for the AstroVette. Either of these is an improvement from what Chevy is introducing, although I do have to give Chevy credit for one C7 feature:
What, you ask? A green Corvette? (To be precise, Lime Rock Green.) Aren’t all Corvettes red (as the book on the creation of the C5 claimed)?
No, there are green Corvettes:
Those are all Corvettes in the standard-for-that-year green color. Most green Corvettes were dark green (for instance, “Glen Green” in 1965, “Fathom Green” in 1969, “Donnybrooke Green” one year later in the first Corvette I recall seeing down the street). Variations of lime started intruding in the early ’70s, but went the way of polyester disco outfits.
Some people decided to choose green after buying their cars, and some, unable to choose one shade of green, decided upon “all of the above”:
I’ve noted a couple of times on this blog that few memorable movies or TV series have featured a Corvette as an important part of the production.
The only one that comes immediately to mind is “Route 66″ …
… although as you know from this blog, there are lesser examples:
Corvette Online reports on the next one featuring actor-turned-governor-turned actor Arnold Schwarzenegger:
Thanks to this recent post on Collider.com, we learned that the former Governator himself will be staring in a new movie titled The Last Stand. The synopsis follows a typical cop-chases-cartel-leader-with-hostage-in-tow story line, which actually sounds like it might be pretty good. But what really grabbed our attention were the cars that are reportedly going to be featured in the movie. The Bad-Guy car is said to be a “specially-outfitted Corvette ZR1”, and if the movie poster is any indication Schwarzenegger will be chasing down the bad guys in a new Camaro ZL1.
Corvette Online points out that “Muscle cars can take a good movie and make it even better, or take a really crappy movie and make it somewhat tolerable.”
That’s one point of view. The contrary is demonstrated in several other movies that feature Corvettes, perhaps unfortunately.
The movie “Stingray” features TV character actor (as in you don’t know his name, but you recognize his face) William Watson and Christopher Mitchum, son of Robert, in a movie in which two drug dealers discover they probably shouldn’t have stashed their $1 million in a ’64 Corvette parked in a used car lot.
There are some situations that even the addition of coolest of cars cannot improve.
The scene in this clip inserts two stereotypically dumb rednecks driving a beat up Chevy pick-up into the car chase mix. The “hilarity” ensues as the “country boys” and the “master criminals” battle it out to on the road to see who has the lowest IQs. And since no car chase scene is complete without an explosion, hand grenades magically appear to end the rolling roadblock.
“Corvette Summer” makes Fox News‘ list of the six best movies featuring Corvettes. (Which isn’t really much of a list, since in the other five movies Vettes make only brief appearances.)
First: The car is a disaster. Asymmetrical hood scoops. Conversion to right-hand drive. Elimination of the iconic hidden headlights.
As for the movie itself, according to IMDB.com:
For a shop class project, he and his classmates build a Corvette (“Stingray”). The car is a big hit — so big, in fact, that gets stolen! Kenny, having fallen in love with the car, sets out on a summer-long adventure in Las Vegas to find it. Along the way, he meets up with a “hooker-in-training” named “Vanessa”. The two encounter danger and romance as they try to steal back the Stingray.
Then there’s “Nasty Hero“: “Chase delivers expensive cars between car dealers or to their rich customers. Six months ago he was deceived and caught by the police with a stolen car. Now he’s back with a black Porsche to find the bad guys and to take revenge.”
On a scale of 1 to 10, IMDB.com gave it a 3.2.
And there’s “Mad Foxes,” discovered 30 years after its production when it showed up on YouTube, as Corvette Online writes:
First released in West Germany in August of ’81 and directed by Paul Grau, the half-assed Nazi/biker film is a cheaply-filmed exploitation film revolving around the theme of revenge, as our featured protagonist and his C3 customized by Neufield Special Cars chases and gets chased by a mob of swastika-wearing street hoods.
As you’d probably expect, the trick C3 takes the spotlight, and if it doesn’t stand as evidence of what customizing in the late ’70s and early ’80s was all about then we honestly don’t know what will! The 3rd-Gen Vette’s stereotypical orange and yellow crescendo of custom striping screams of what was in vogue during the golden age of disco-era hot rodding.
Somehow “Mad Foxes” generates a 5.6 from IMDB.com, despite one review that calls it “properly the stupidest movie ever made”:
The dubbing is properly the worst ever and the film is drenched in blood, swastikas, disco, heavy metal, small bikes, sex and bad acting. The spirit of Herschell Gordon Lewis lives on, so get a copy of this obscure anti-masterpiece!
“Anti-masterpiece” sounds like the 1981 California-only Corvette with a 305 V-8 and automatic.
The Internet Movie Cars Database lists 1,439 separate uses of Corvettes in TV or movies, including cartoon versions. Only “Corvette Summer,” “Mad Foxes,” and the TV and movie iterations of “Stingray” rate five stars, “The vehicle is part of the movie.” Go to four stars, “Vehicle used a lot by main character or for a long time,” and you get such movies as “Kiss Me Deadly” (the second car Mike Hammer has) …
… something called “Hot Rods to Hell” …
… “King of the Mountain” …
… “Body Heat” …
… the ’80s flick “Less Than Zero” …
… “The A-Team” …
… “Sunset Grill” …
… a German TV series I mentioned here last week, “Alarm für Cobra 11 – Die Autobahnpolizei”…
There’s still an opportunity for someone to write a movie that features a Corvette that isn’t as ludicrous as “Corvette Summer.” If I could only write scripts for “Super Steve: Man of Action” …
One has to be more discerning than me, apparently, to see the similarities between the C2 in the background and the C7 in the foreground. At least now we know what it looks like, since we knew what it would notlook like.
Corvette’s legacy was forged 60 years ago this month when it was introduced at the General Motors Motorama show in New York City. The Corvette wasn’t born an icon, however. It earned its reputation as America’s sports car through decades of continual refinement and fundamental engineering advancements. …
For nearly all of its history, Corvette’s design, performance and technology has been influenced by the lessons learned on the racetrack. It is a pillar of the development process established by Zora Arkus-Duntov, Corvette’s first chief engineer, through overt and covert racing initiatives, leading up to the factory-backed Corvette Racing program’s 2012 American Le Mans Series championship in the production-based GT class.
Corvette’s iconic status is reflected off the track, as well. In popular culture it has numerous co-starring roles to its credit, from “Route 66” on television (1960-64) to the namesake big-screen performance in “Corvette Summer” (1978) – and countless cameos and supporting roles since. Corvette has inspired songs, artwork and video games, including the current version of the Gran Turismo series, where the seventh-generation appeared in pre-production camouflage. There is even a Corvette child’s bed from Step2 featuring functional headlights.
In other words, what you get in the Corvette you can’t, or don’t, buy may be available in a more affordable car later on. Corvettes get people in the showroom. Corvettes generate positive media attention for GM, as opposed to what GM has been getting (and earning) recently. And, most importantly given GM’s finances, Corvettes make money for GM. (As do pickups, which will be getting a variation of the Corvette’s new engine.)
(Political point: Vice President Joe Biden bought a new Corvette in 1967. He reportedly still has it. Sen. John McCain (R–Arizona) has one too. And if I ever meet Biden, I’m going to ask him why he wants to prevent others from owning Corvettes.)
My first impression of the C7′s styling is that it does bear one resemblance to the C2, specifically the first C2 — quite busy. The interesting thing about the five-year C2 is that GM Styling took things off the car, to the point where the 1967 C2 was the cleanest-looking Corvette of that generation. I don’t mind the look, but I wouldn’t say that a miniwindow behind the B-pillar bears much resemblance to the C2′s wraparound rear window.
Truth be told, this view looks more like the C2 than the side view.
The C7 is the first Corvette to be called a “Stingray” since the last C3, as GM’s news release puts it, “And only a Corvette with the perfect balance of technology, design and performance can wear the iconic Stingray designation.” (“The perfect balance of technology, design and performance” does not describe the last few years of C3s, but never mind that.)
“Like the ’63 Sting Ray, the best Corvettes embodied performance leadership, delivering cutting-edge technologies, breathtaking design and awe-inspiring driving experiences,” said General Motors North America President Mark Reuss. “The all-new Corvette goes farther than ever, thanks to today’s advancements in design, technology and engineering.”
And what might “today’s advancements” be?
Advanced driver technologies, including a five-position Drive Mode Selector that tailors 12 vehicle attributes to the fit the driver’s environment and a new seven-speed manual transmission with Active Rev Matching that anticipates gear selections and matches engine speed for perfect shifts every time.
An all-new 6.2L LT1 V-8 engine combines advanced technologies, including direct injection, Active Fuel Management, continuously variable valve timing and an advanced combustion system that delivers more power while using less fuel. …
Track-capable Z51 Performance Package including: an electronic limited-slip differential, dry-sump oiling system, integral brake, differential and transmission cooling, as well as a unique aero package that further improves high-speed stability.
That’s the tech. What about how it looks?
Lightweight materials, including a carbon fiber hood and removable roof panel; composite fenders, doors and rear quarter panels; carbon-nano composite underbody panels and a new aluminum frame help shift weight rearward for an optimal 50/50 weight balance that supports a world-class power-to-weight ratio.
A sculptured exterior features advanced high-intensity discharge and light-emitting diode lighting and racing-proven aerodynamics that balance low drag for efficiency and performance elements for improved stability and track capability.
The last bullet point should be good news for those who have complained about Corvette interiors for years:
An interior that includes real carbon fiber, aluminum and hand-wrapped leather materials, two new seat choices – each featuring a lightweight magnesium frame for exceptional support – and dual eight-inch configurable driver/infotainment screens.
I assume from looking at these photos and from what I’ve read that the C7 has some sort of high-tech instrument panel, in that the driver can program which gauges he or she wants to see. The extent to which that’s good depends on how much information can see. (Speedometer, tachometer, fuel and engine temperature can be seen on cars a fraction of the cost.)
The engine sounds good, although I remain skeptical of any cylinder-deactivation technology. (On the other hand, if the driver keeps his foot down, the cylinders won’t deactivate.) My bigger concern was that Chevy was going to do something stupid and sell it only with a V-6 (first reports were a twin-turbo V-6 to be precise, but a V-6 is a V-6) and a flipper-shifter automatic. Either of those would have terminated my interest in the car, because a manual transmission is required for a true driver experience, and anything besides a V-8 is an abomination to that car.
Corvettes have had two taillights per side (usually round) since the first C2. If you think these taillights look like they came from the Camaro, you are not wrong.
The interesting question will be pricing, which hasn’t been revealed yet. The C6 was arguably the best performance bargain on the planet, as measured by dollars per horsepower. The most expensive, most powerful Corvette cost less by that measure than the least expensive Porsche Boxster. And if price is a concern, you do not want to know the Ferrari California’s cost per horsepower. The question is whether the tech and interior upgrades have priced the new Vette where it is not so much a performance bargain.
Of course, I can’t really say whether the Corvette is a success or not until I get to drive one. (Hint, hint, Chevy dealers reading this.)
Seeing as how the seventh-generation Corvette will make its world debut Sunday, this seems appropriate, from Corvette Online:
Corvettes have always been something to be admired, as they’re generally driven by people who are in a certain position in life. Usually the discerning Corvette owner is someone who appreciates performance, good looks, and sex appeal, and they’re almost always at a position in life where they actually have the cash required to own a Corvette. That means that most Vettes are not driven by kids in their teens, or even by a lot of people still in their 20′s. Corvettes are driven by successful people. People who have taken risks, and won. People that have made it.
With all of that being said, it should come as no surprise to you that the car of choice by astronauts in the 1960′s was (drumroll please) none other than the Corvette. Astronauts were men that were front and center in the public eye and were symbols of bravery, risk taking, and all out coolness. They hadmade it. They were bigger than rock stars in the United States, at least for a time, and General Motors waned to make sure that the world saw them driving the fastest, coolest, bravest car around, the Corvette.
The program started with the first U.S. astronaut to escape (briefly) Earth orbit, Alan Shepard:
GM saw both a service and a marketing opportunity with the astronauts’ fame. GM President Ed Cole gave Alan Shepard, the first American in space, a 1962 Corvette as a gift for his service to his country, though it was not in character for GM to give away cars; not even to astronauts. According to Dollie Cole, Ed Cole’s widow, the gift made perfect sense, despite GM’s normal tendency to avoid things like that. “The astronauts were incredibly visible,” she recalled in an interview recently re-published on VetteWeb.com. “And good publicity is good publicity.”
She felt the Corvettes were more than a publicity stunt, but were actually a gift of appreciation. “Who more worthy than guys who represent our country?” Dollie declares. “They were literally risking their lives. Space travel today isn’t ‘ho hum’, but people perceive it that way. There were so many unknowns then. The cars were a way of saying ‘Thank you.’”
Aside from Shepard, no astronaut was given a Corvette from GM, and for one big reason that had nothing to do with GM policy; it turned out that astronauts were not allowed to take gifts or do endorsements. That being said, they could lease cars at exceptional rates and thus the $1 astronaut lease program was born.
I met Scott Carpenter when he gave a speech at UW–Platteville in the late 1980s. I wish I’d known about the Corvette thing then. (The $1 rental thing is probably the only way I could ever afford a Corvette.)
Carpenter’s fellow Mercury astronaut, Virgil “Gus” Grissom, decided his $1 Vette needed a little work:
It turned out that the Corvette was the perfect car for space jockeys with a flair for speed, danger, and competition. Gus Grissom, the second American in space, loved his Corvette’s dearly, but hated losing drag races to his fellow astronauts. In the fall of 1966 both he and fellow astronaut Alan Shepard, the first American in space, took delivery of identical brand new 1967 427/435 horsepower Corvette Roadsters. Grissom hated losing races to Shepard so he asked Jim Rathmann, owner of Jim Rathmann Chevrolet/Cadillac in Melbourne, FL to help him with his new Corvette. According to gusgrissomcorvette.com, Rathmann obliged and ever-so-slightly widened the rear wheel openings to allow room for bigger tires and put in a 4:56 posi rear end. Grissom won nearly every race against Shepard as a result, and we have no idea if Alan Shepard ever knew of the modifications!
As Mercury became Gemini and then Apollo, the program continued:
It seemed that all astronauts had a Corvette somewhere in the mix. Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, had a Corvette. Jim Lovell, the Commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, had a Corvette. But perhaps the most interest Astronaut/Corvette story came with the crew of Apollo 12, because they acquired matching Corvettes! Apollo 12 launched for the moon on November 14, 1969 and it’s members were Mission Commander Pete Conrad, Lunar Module Pilot, Al Bean, and Command Module Pilot Dick Gordon. The three were close knit and remained friends even after their NASA days.
The idea of matching cars was unique to the Apollo 12 crew as no other Apollo team did it, despite the fact that it was common for them to be driving a Corvette. In the aforementioned interview, Al Bean recalled the situation. “We liked the idea. It was a way to be a team and build esprit de corps. We all talked about it, and the first couple of ideas didn’t work.” The Corvettes that the astronauts chose were a trio of identical Riverside Gold ’69 coupes. Each was equipped with the stock 427 CI/390HP engine, had Head Restraints (RPO A82), 4-Season Air Conditioning (RPO C60), Special Wheel Covers (RPO PO2), and the AM/FM Pushbutton Radio (RPO U69).
The story doesn’t say, but one assumes they were all correctly equipped with four-speed manual transmissions. And since the Apollo missions launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida, air conditioning was a wise choice.
