Uh Oh... C8s Are Depreciating Quicker than C7s

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Davil

A Corvette doesn’t need to be the fastest or best handling car. It needs to be an experience. Something you have an emotional connection to. Every manufacturer is about lap times and numbers these days. Boo.

I’ll take one of these thanks. What a piece of art.

In a world where I had li.itless funds, I've have a restomod C2 and C3. Modern frame underneath, LS motors (because I don't understand carbs),modern brakes and seats.

They didn't make a bad looking Corvette until the C8. I don't love the C1 (especially the early ones) or the early C4 or the C7, but none were actually ugly until the C8.

[JRF]

Originally Posted by Mavus

The rear end design is like toys r us kid car and I can’t stand that wall in the cabin really horrid layout. would take c7 z06 I think

looks like Walmart Ferrari

..... The rear end design is like toys r us kid car......

that might be the funniest thing I've read on the internet all month! And it's true. The C8 is an embarrassment. Even worse than the G80.

[Mavus]

Originally Posted by JRF

..... The rear end design is like toys r us kid car......

that might be the funniest thing I've read on the internet all month! And it's true. The C8 is an embarrassment. Even worse than the G80.

I kid you not those 4 little square exhaust pipes were not aligned and look tiny like a toy car, and then there is that black mesh cover under rear lights and so on. The rear end design does not flow with the front end and side, like 2 diff design teams worked on front and rear end and then just put it together. And the proportions are off also due to longer rear (must be the trunk). The interior is fine except for the wall, just about the stupidest layout you can see in a perf car. Camaro looks like a more cohesive design.

[Davil]

Originally Posted by David70

I agree and it's why I have my AM Vantage, I decided on it based on the engine characteristics and how it looks. If I line up for a race I will possibly lose by a fraction of a second. 1st - never happens, 2nd - I don't care.

Ha! I have two Vantages! TBH the 4.7 one is pretty bloody quick when on the boil. It isn’t a drag racer though and I’m just not doing that to my clutch. From memory it pulls power in 1st.

The 4.0TT one is insanely fast. Again on the boil. I believe it also pulls power in first and also second. That’s actually a good thing.

Both make you feel so good. I have no interest in lap times or racing people. Not what these cars are about. I’d put Corvettes in a similar feel good zone.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Davil

Ha! I have two Vantages! TBH the 4.7 one is pretty bloody quick when on the boil. It isn’t a drag racer though and I’m just not doing that to my clutch. From memory it pulls power in 1st.

The 4.0TT one is insanely fast. Again on the boil. I believe it also pulls power in first and also second. That’s actually a good thing.

Both make you feel so good. I have no interest in lap times or racing people. Not what these cars are about. I’d put Corvettes in a similar feel good zone.

I seriously considered the previous Vantage, I think long term it will show to be a more classic/attractive design.

It pulls torque in 1st and 2nd on the manual, not the automatic. They made very few manuals (best guess is less than 400), some were the special edition AMR's, only a 2 year run, the 7 speed manual got mixed reviews but regardless, on the used market they go for a large premium, far more than I thought the transmission was worth. Evidently they didn't sell well as after this small production run they haven't built or even planned anymore.

What's most surprising about the engine is the 505 ft. lbs. of torque at 2k rpms. Pretty simple to spin the wheels if you aren't careful. Will be interesting to see if the hp/torque increase (roughly 150 hp and 85 ft. lbs) on the 2025 translates into much quicker acceleration or lack of traction hurts it.

[Davil]

Originally Posted by David70

What's most surprising about the engine is the 505 ft. lbs. of torque at 2k rpms. Pretty simple to spin the wheels if you aren't careful. Will be interesting to see if the hp/torque increase (roughly 150 hp and 85 ft. lbs) on the 2025 translates into much quicker acceleration or lack of traction hurts it.

I’m almost certain it’s the auto too. Can’t recall where I read it though.

That 505 lb-ft is 1750-4500rpm. Peak is actually 556 lb-ft.

Apparently the new one is nuts. Not an off the line car but in gear its supercar quick. It has wider wheels and much better tyres though.

I honestly don’t think my one needs any more torque though.