balthazar

Have an '03 GP in the driveway- bought with 29K, currently has 107K. 3.1L has had it's intake gaskets replaced, but this car been really trouble-free. Only issue with it is that the power locks don't always unlock when you shift it to park- big deal. Gets around 23 in the road froth that is central Jersey traffic, and power is very decent. I don't mind driving it at all when I don't need the Silverado.

Corvette, being built in 1 plant only, should be returned to a 'line item' order sheet, and absolutely offer delete options with an eye toward competition. I don't see it dropping the price from -say- $45K to $35K (and frankly it shouldn't), but it's proper for this segment IMO. That's just good marketing for the Corvette, not an addressing of the supposed 'demographic problem'.

The Corvette needs a different interior, different transmission, different engine, different drive wheels, different roof, different styling, different pricing, different seating position, different body material, different greenhouse, different options & different owners. Making it more like 8 or 10 other cars all at once is a good place to start. Oh, and a different name, and sell it in different dealerships. Maybe build it in a different factory, and make the lug nuts thread on in a different rotation. But definitely & especially; that strong, lightweight body material: get some high tech, heavyweight steel going there to really freshen it up. GT-R uses metal and 19-yr old kids buy those and their dollar bills are crisper. GM cannot keep accepting crumpled, faded dollar bills; the past is gone. F**k it : trash the entire car and start over with something completely different. It may be time to move away from having a world-class iconic sports car. -- -- -- -- -- Seriously, the whole 'gold chain Corvette' stereotype thing peaked in the late '70s, when the Corvette was a white-walled cruiser doing a 15-sec 1/4-mile. Those cars had no respect as performance vehicles, but those days are LONG gone. Time to update the stereotype rolodex. Again we wrestle with the old tired bogie that every GM car MUST sell tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of a given model, because once during GM's peak, it did. This sort of 'carpet bombing' mindset only leads to cut corners, tons of incentives & fleet sales, decontenting and eroded image & profits. You don't build down to a price point anywhere near this segment & expect long-term success. We've seen that fail in car biz history all too often. SALES VOLUME should NEVER be the goal of the Corvette. Otherwise, just switch Bowling Green over to Impala production and pump up the fleet volume.

ANY attempt to make the Corvette 'something everyone can buy' would be the most colossal 'dropping of the ball' in the history of the industry. The 'Edsel' of this century. GM is not & cannot be about crushing volume anymore. The Corvette once lived another year on 300 annual units, because that car is not about volume, never was about volume, and never should be. Those in charge then understood this, I sure hope those in charge now do, too.

Cars, in general, and including the Malibu, are too narrow.

Now I remember : about 10 years after General Motors.

Seems old to have had an airbag. Regardless; it wasn't up to upper-level 1960s body hardware & fitment & interior appointments, never mind 1980-1990s. Not a single thing about it said 'luxury'.

^ The one thing we DO kno via the pic at the top of this thread is that it'll have LED taillights, tho I would not term this a "feature", per say. IE: it's an intangible. Trunk volume on the current car is pretty good, it's just the opening that could be larger.

Got ample time to look over a mercedees 560SL. Not sure of the exact vintage (had ABS & a driver-side airbag, plus the ribbed EXCITEMENT!!!! lower body, but boy howdy was it an unmitigated piece of crap. Exposed rubber gaskets, exposed screws, faded plastic, uber-cheap interior. Someone here recently proclaimed these things as the class leaders in luxury flagships. Not even close. As is so typical- overhyped without substance.

Friend had a rotary muzduh once. He 'revved the beans out of it' and it blew up in a day & a half.

I've never thought it 'sexy'- has a lot of the 1st gen Corvair frumpiness to it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still have stylistic appeal. Front is pretty wonky tho. It came about as close to not being saved as possible- in a junkyard for 30 years, cut into 7 major pieces & scattered. Of course it's great it's 'back'- that's multi-million dollar history right there. Too bad the '56 Impala hasn't survived tho (as far as is publicly known).

^ Not the marketing aspect; the lightweight aspect. Nowadays, Car x SUXORS! if it doesn't have every single latest 1lb electronic gimmick going. Sheet metal is paper thin, glass is thinner, 80% of the interior is plastic, 40% of the exterior... I am afraid the areas left are those unimportant invisible ones, like structure... or more expensive materials are going to have to be employed - rendering said factory lightweight a plaything of the disposable income crowd. Just not sure how engineering is going to spin it up if content reduction isn't utilized.

Sure I gets you, Camino- back when weights weren't out of control, lightweights carried great attention among enthusiasts. Today the knowledge of high weights has much wider awareness, so marketing for one might have a big impact. Question is, can it be done ?

When mercedes 2-seat roadsters -half made of plastic- weighs nearly as much as a 1957 Imperial hardtop sedan with a cast-iron Hemi, I think there's a universal appeal in a factory lightweight.

I've read a number of complaints about reprehensible dealer practices at that mega hyundkia dealer, but the fact remains that they are pulling people in with IINNSSAANNEE pricing advertisements, whatever the manufacturer incentives may be reported as. You can't offer a $25K car for $89/mn unless you are either figuring on something like $10K+ down, payments lasting 10 years ("America's longest car loans!!") or some other sort of shenanigans. Numbers are black & white- either there's other ways of kicking back money to the dealers, or something... but the point is there's a distinct public presentation here that's bringing people in, and in my observation- it hasn't been the vehicles themselves. The mega-dealer has a weed choked gravel lot and the showroom is depressingly utilitarian. Definitely not the 'dealer experience' at play here, either.

^ Could be- the central Jersey market is very competitive. Natch, it goes without saying that you not hearing hyundkia 'fire sale' ads may just be a factor of your market.

Are you actually using list price in this instance?? The big dealers have all the polish & poise of the old Crazy Eddie electronics voice-over. You're too young to remember these I'll bet: Dealer in my radio reception area is advertising souls for $39/mnth. Does that sound like a brand selling on features & 'being a good deal'? The incredible/unbelievable Sonata is $89/mnth. Ads don't tell you a single feature of the vehicles- it's all down payment/financing tactics. One of the supposedly top 5 biggest hyundai dealers in right down the road from me- every 2 weeks it's another horrific-'humor' radio spot and another crazy deal. Give hyund-kia another 20 years and maybe their history up until 3 years ago will be forgotten enough that they can compete on an equal pricing footing without IINNSSAANNNEEE prices.

Kia is pumping models out at cutthroat prices and DEALS!!DEALS!!DEALS!!, not value & features.

^ No you're not. Front-on view is pretty good, a mean chunky lil monkey, but turn to quarter views and there's way too much going on & stacked up. Might make a far better design at 190"; it looks stylistically compacted. It needs some clean up aft of the pass compartment... but it's still got a lot of buzz potential. I saw 'Mi-ray' and read 'Mini-ray', as in a mini Manta Ray, for some reason.

So what was it exactly that mercedees got/wanted??

The one Aldi near me is not in a neighborhood where I'd care to get out of the car.

DB4/5 aren't bad, but they pale next to the '56-57 Corvette for cohesiveness, IMO. '56-58 300s are fairly awesome, as are the standard '56 Cadillacs, Cripes; I could list dozens upon dozens here. e-type jag looks good from above, but has issues, too. Lower body somehow looks unfinished- the tires are majorly exposed. Phantom V was 15 years outdated when it debuted. Not most people's idea of a great design.

The exhaust heat thing was addressed early on with regenerators, IIRC : 'Asphalt melting' is an urban myth. No doubt a modern version could be made pretty quiet, too. It's the original 'alternate fuel' vehicle.

Thought you'd say that, but aside from the turbine inlets & the rear outboard fuel tanks, the car couldn't be any cleaner. 'course; you take those off and the car starts to get boring to look at. Only chrome/trim is the inlets, the tips of the tanks & thin moldings around the glass. There's not even any character lines aside from the wheel openings.

So you're saying you don't like the Firebird II ('56), correct? Cause it's pretty clean & smooth.....