You wanna spend $120K on a ZR1 and get dated technology? Because I don't...I can get a Carrera S for cheaper.

My original argument was that their own suspension (on the CTS-V with Magnetic Ride Control) that uses 4 coils is better than their leaf spring suspension. It doesn't have to be "broke" to IMPROVE it.

 

I can't wait for the C7 to be released... I absolutely Love the powerplant and if it has a hint of the looks of the Daytona prototype vette....#Winner!

I already know the vette will perform greatly, so I'm not really concerned with that...as stated before, if it ain't broke, Don't fix it(just tweak it) hehe

 

It looks like a mix between a 599 and a Viper, based on the renderings

 

And coils aren't dated technology? The internal combustion engine isn't dated technology? Rubber tires aren't dated technology? Really, that argument could be used for anything, from suspension components, to jet engines. And it's an argument I've literally seen hundreds of times.

People don't seem to realise that the Corvette leaf spring isn't ox-cart tech. The suspension itself is a double-wishbone setup, which can be found on many modern cars(including offerings from Ferrari). The only difference is that it uses a single composite leaf spring in place of coilovers. This is evidenced by the fact that you can replace the leafs with coils without changing the overall setup at all. But the double-wishbone suspension has been around since the 1930's, so it's "dated" as well. Actually older than the Corvette-specific setup by some 30 years. Then there's the MacPherson strut setup, which has been around since the late 40's. Dated, someone contact Porsche. See what I mean? Almost anything can be called "dated" in some context.

Exactly how is the CTS-V's suspension "better" than a Corvette's? Not trying to be mocking or anything, I'm genuinely curious as to what you think justifies that statement. I've seen the coils vs leafs argument literally hundreds of times, yet I've never seen anyone come up with any reason that a coilover setup is hands down mechanically superior to the 'Vette's transverse leaf spring setup. By the same token, no one has been able to prove the TLS hands down superior, either, so it always ends in a stalemate. But that only leads to that old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", as others here have already said. I agree that there's nothing wrong with improving the system; but that's what GM has been doing ever since the 60's, improving the system. Same with everything else that could be called "dated" based on its origins.

 

for someone who knows a bunch of race teams and spends a lot of time on the track....you really seem to be clueless

 

Leaf springs do handle quite a bit more weight than coils, but this clearly isn't necessary with a Corvette. Coils have a greater range of movement and a better engineered geometry. Leaf springs flex a great deal less than coil springs, resulting in a loss contact with the ground under more extreme conditions. As for the CTS-V argument, I'm just going off their own ad campaign..."Ferrari borrowed OUR technology...". So they've got a coil set-up with Magnetic Ride Control that Ferrari liked enough to copy for the 458. Why not put that in their super awesome sports car? This is just my opinion btw. No reason for anyone to take offense. Just a friendly debate (or supposed to be on here right?). Everything is a dated concept, but the way they change suspension components (like MRC) isn't dated.


Who's clueless? I'm stating an opinion and your taking personal offense? No reason to be insulting people. I don't see you adding any kind of educated input on this topic. I never claimed to "spend a lot of time on the track". I've been to 2 different races with them, filling in for one of the pit crew, and they are the only team I know.

 

With the Corvette's ride height, I don't think there's enough suspension travel on either side to ever experience a loss of contact. You'd be chewing up your wheel wells before that happened. Plus, the same can be said even for cars with coil springs. You can see plenty of pictures of cars lifting a tire off the ground during extreme high-g cornering.

As for the Cadillac ad, that was purely about MRC, not the suspension as a whole. But, in terms of general setup, a CTS-V, Corvette and 458 all use double-wishbones(though I think both the 458 and CTS-V use a multi-link rears). Only difference is the type of spring used. On another note, I laughed the first time I saw that ad. First thing that came to mind was "GM's trying too hard". The V-series Caddies are good, but they ain't *that* good.

Not offended in the least, just genuinely curious. Though I suppose I did come off a wee bit hostile, and I apologise for that. I guess you could call me jaded, as out of the hundreds of times I've seen the 'Vette's use of leaf springs slammed, 98% of the time it's along the lines of "Well...Uh...They're leaf springs, and therefore inferior...Jeremy Clarkson said so". I see any post ragging on the leafs, I automatically assume the worst. I should've known that wouldn't be the case here. Again, apologies. Not exactly the impression I wanted to make on my very first post.

 

Lol no by all means, come at me bro!

Hahaha JK I figured as much. I didn't think you were offended but I didn't want anyone else to be. LOL @ the AD. That and the "tuning back the engine" AD make me die laughing hahaha. I think they are trying just a tiny bit too hard lol.

I wouldn't sleep on the CTS-V though. I really think that set-up is insane. Excuse my general "fan-boy-ness", but one of those things showed up to the Tail of the Dragon when I went with my buddy and his S2000 club, and this dude in the CTS-V was destroying some of the S2K's in the corners....that impressed the crap outta me.

IMO (I'll state that first this time) I just think the styling of the Corvette, in and out, is awful and the suspension seems so primitive compared to some of the other technology they have access to, although, I didn't know the Vette was using a double wishbone as well. Even still, I think they could improve. I think that ZR1 should be able to beat the Viper around the Nurburgring with all the stuff that GM claims (big HP numbers that were "tuned back") but it just doesn't. So I guess it's a bit specific but that's what I meant when I said I wanted to see it succeed.

PS: LOL @ Jeremy Clarkson said so

 

Don't take this the wrong way..

But it really boils my bread when some kid comes on line and starts talking about car technology like they are smarter then the company that builds the car in question.


So according to your logic, GM should fire all there Automotive Engineers and cancel the millions of dollars of R&D, and forget about all the success this platform has experience on the race track because a kid with a mustang with hood pins thinks that coils will be better?

Your right, Chances are all of the staff at GM are retarded and have no chance of being as genius as you and are far too lazy to install coils in this car to please you.

I bet if it had a soild rear axle you would not be complaining?

I get that you have come on the Internets to express your opinion, and that is fine. However coming on here and talking down to a bunch of people on a subject you know very little about makes you look a tad but silly.


Engineers out there will understand were I'm coming from.

 

Was it a stock CTS-V or a tuner? Because I went to Spring Mountain once and got my ass whooped by a guy in a white CTS-V sedan. His car *looks* stock, but it's actually a D3 job, complete with suspension mods. Never thought I'd call a CTS-V a sleeper in any capacity, but that one was.

Never really minded the exterior of the Corvette. Doesn't exactly do anything for me(though I once saw a black C3 Stingray at a hot rod show that made me weak in the knees), but it's hardly ugly and you'll never mistake it for anything else. But it's most certainly overdue for a change, and could stand to be more aggressive. I'm not even gonna get started on the interior. That particular horse has been beaten into unrecognizable mush, and GM seems to have gotten the message based on the spy shots.

To be fair, the "Just to be fair" ad was talking about the GT2 C6.Rs , which "only" make 485hp due to class restrictions. Still doesn't make much sense, as the GT2 cars don't have engines based on the LS9, but it is true that their race cars are actually making less power than their road cars(though, if you take off the restrictors on the 5.5L, even the LS9 would pale in comparison). Of course, this is true for just about every manufacturer in the class, but none of their road cars are making as much power as a ZR1 in the first place. Again, doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you stop to think about it, but that's marketing for you.