Viper being Killed off Vette next?

[Vet Guru]

Reports of the Viper being killed off on the american forums beacuse of the new CAFE rules in 2010 that Bush has signed up to a lot of brands are droping V8's for more powerful V6 cars.
Could the Vette get dropped I hope not, Maybe Ford will start making Mustangs like the ones in the Mid 70's!!! Again.

[Viper]

Cerberus taking over Chrysler hasnt helped much for the Viper either, they are already offering $100K redundancy packages at the viper production plant, and are rumored to be closing around 1000 dealerships in the US alone....

[vetteheadracer]

The design stage of the C7 vette is already underway for a projected launch in model year 2011 i.e. sales to start Sept 2010. The big difference between the vette and viper is sales volume and profitability.

[Godzilla]

It's still Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy, so provided GM start making a lot of very economical cars, the Vette will still be able to have a hefty V8!

Having said that, there will have to be a massive turnaround in GM's range for that to happen as the Vette is very far from being their thirstiest current car...

[anonymous-user]

Yes, it's the manufacturers with no small economical cars in the range (mainly German) who are quaking in thir boots at that one.

Nonetheless I fear it's inevitable the ageing Viper is under serious threat with the new owners.

C7 Corvette with 6-cylinders and 400bhp? Well, if you insist.

[CraigMorrison]

I doubt that the Corvette will ever be killed off. It is probably the longest produced brand that Chevrolet has (since '53) and there is a lot of brand loyalty here in the States for that car. If they did, there would be a rebellion of Baby-Boomers wearing satin Corvette jackets and Corvette medalions pounding their black-leather driving gloves on GM's door. If Corvette goes away so too will GM.

[Matt Harper]

Godzilla said:

It's still Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy, so provided GM start making a lot of very economical cars,

Is that right? Motor Trend states that GM's CAFE Mandate is model specific - i.e. the new model must deliver better AVERAGE fuel efficiency than the predecessor. Hence all the scary press about a future Corvette being based on the Pontiac Solstice platform (Heaven forbid).

Additionally, why would any manufacturer, German or otherwise, be worried about GM's fuel economy mandate? This is a corporate undertaking - not a federal requirement - and comes from a company that today announced 2007 losses of $38.7 Billion. Not exactly an inspirational performance, which would have been even worse, were it not for European (Vauxhall/Opel) efficiencies.

[dinkel]

A Dutch journo managed to get almost 30 mpg on a run coast to north of Holland, about 125 miles. Not in like driving conditions matching the Z06's character

[fatboy18]

I seem to remember Corvettes started out with a straight 6 engine in 53! If the V8 is droped they could always improve on the 6 ( might get even more MPG)

[Maxwedge]

According to autoblog the Viper is probably going to be killed off because Chrysler is going to spread the development money to other cars http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/10/dodge-viper-cou... Current 600bhp 8.4 Liter gets 26mpg...What more do you want.

From
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...


"Question: How will the upcoming 35 mpg CAFE standard affect this car down the road?

Herb Helbig: I don't think Viper will be affected very much, because volumes are so low. You know, that's an average fuel economy."

this is interesting in that I thought CAFE was figured by taking all the car models offered (Engine transmittion combinations included) like a V6 Auto Camaro(and its MPG) added to a V6 Manual Camaro(and its MPG) and a V8 Auto Camaro(and its MPG) and a manual Camaro(and its MPG). Average those numbers together then do the same for all the cars offered by GM and Average them all together and that gives you a companies CAFE...the way Herb Helbig(the senior manager of SRT Vehicle Dynamics) implies, by the above comment, that you just add all the cars produced that year and average that???

or something like that

also from autoblog
The next Vett isnt getting killed off, the big change will be the 4.7 Liter supercharged motor making about 500bhp and is projected to be 500lbs lighter..

Edited by Maxwedge on Friday 22 February 15:58

[qube_TA]

5 USA said:

Yes, it's the manufacturers with no small economical cars in the range (mainly German) who are quaking in thir boots at that one.

Nonetheless I fear it's inevitable the ageing Viper is under serious threat with the new owners.

C7 Corvette with 6-cylinders and 400bhp? Well, if you insist.

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

[vetteheadracer]

qube_TA said:

5 USA said:

Yes, it's the manufacturers with no small economical cars in the range (mainly German) who are quaking in thir boots at that one.

Nonetheless I fear it's inevitable the ageing Viper is under serious threat with the new owners.

C7 Corvette with 6-cylinders and 400bhp? Well, if you insist.

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

Given the US is going E85 mad at the moment including this seasons ALMS C6R cars it is more likely that food prices will sky rocket as the US converts its farming industry to E85 suitable plant production, the Arabs will be quaking in their sandals as they can't eat their oil......

My view of world economics is thus, America reduces its reliablity on oil most of which it buys from the politically unreliable middle east by converting some of its arable farming to E85 fuel production. This has many advantages, including E85 is carbon neutral (well at least 15% of it is) and at the moment the Americans dispose of their excess wheat etc. through Unicef / Unesco food aid programs to third world countries. This has further advantages of kill off the ungrateful third world population who aspire to western standards of living but without western technology or economic funding make dirty and inefficient power causing global warming and pollution. No third world population demanding dirty power, no associated global warming.

Its a win, win for everyone except the third world which to be honest no one gives a damned about anyway.

[tommyg]

You forgot to add that if more farming is taken up with E85 production there will be less food and people will starve thus there being less people to affect the world leading to a reduction in this climate change malarky.

[roscobbc]

I wonder if GM will fully incorporate Daywoo (or what ever its called)as a 'proper' and real Chevrolet product. It will certainly then have plenty of higher mileage cars then to help average-out their corporate CAFE ratings.

[Corsette]

E85 is not carbon neutral.

The stoimetric of Ethanol is about 8.5, petrol is 14.7. Ethanol has a higher octane rating - about 15% more efficient than petrol. Net/net - worse off. Branson's a fool if he thinks he can run 747s on ethanol, he'll need enormous tanks for the fuel (less passengers) or touch down every 500 miles to top up. Bit like a Corvette then.

[Maxwedge]

qube_TA said:

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

actually that is wrong...at 65mph how much hp do you need to propell a car weighing x# of lbs Plus the wind resistance, general friction loss inside the motor along with tire contact patch friction loss are to be considered and not all cars are created equal on these variables.
the other thing to consider, and most important of all, what RPM is the car running at the speed in question...
another factor
IF you compare 2 cars with 400hp and one engine is running 1500rpms at 65mph that only required 3 gear changes to get to that level is going to burn alot less fuel than the motor that had to spin up to 9000rpm and run through 5 gear changes...

[Maxwedge]

qube_TA said:

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

actually that is somewhat wrong...at 65mph how much hp do you need to propel a car weighing x# of lbs Plus the wind resistance, general friction loss inside the motor along with tire contact patch friction loss are to be considered and not all cars are created equal on these variables.
the other thing to consider, and most important of all, what RPM is the car running at the speed in question...
another factor
IF you compare 2 cars with 400hp and one engine is running 1500rpms at 65mph that only required 3 gear changes to get to that level is going to burn alot less fuel than the motor that had to spin up to 9000rpm and run through 5 gear changes...

[qube_TA]

Maxwedge said:

qube_TA said:

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

actually that is somewhat wrong...at 65mph how much hp do you need to propel a car weighing x# of lbs Plus the wind resistance, general friction loss inside the motor along with tire contact patch friction loss are to be considered and not all cars are created equal on these variables.
the other thing to consider, and most important of all, what RPM is the car running at the speed in question...
another factor
IF you compare 2 cars with 400hp and one engine is running 1500rpms at 65mph that only required 3 gear changes to get to that level is going to burn alot less fuel than the motor that had to spin up to 9000rpm and run through 5 gear changes...

Nah, find me two similar cars with similar power & similar weight that have very different economy/emission figures? They're all about the same regardless of how they go about it.

Smaller engines have to work harder to have the same output of larger engines which cancels out any MPG gains.

[fatboy18]

I seem to remember some bloke called 'Carol' saying 'There anit no subistute for cubic inches' WELL SAID THAT MAN

[Godzilla]

qube_TA said:

Maxwedge said:

qube_TA said:

A 400HP engine will use 400HP worth of fuel regardless of how many cylinders it has (same applies for displacement, number of cams, valves, induction, etc).

actually that is somewhat wrong...at 65mph how much hp do you need to propel a car weighing x# of lbs Plus the wind resistance, general friction loss inside the motor along with tire contact patch friction loss are to be considered and not all cars are created equal on these variables.
the other thing to consider, and most important of all, what RPM is the car running at the speed in question...
another factor
IF you compare 2 cars with 400hp and one engine is running 1500rpms at 65mph that only required 3 gear changes to get to that level is going to burn alot less fuel than the motor that had to spin up to 9000rpm and run through 5 gear changes...

Nah, find me two similar cars with similar power & similar weight that have very different economy/emission figures? They're all about the same regardless of how they go about it.

Smaller engines have to work harder to have the same output of larger engines which cancels out any MPG gains.

My Z06 gets considerably better MPG than my F430 and they both have very similar power and weight figures.

http://www.auto-journals.com/blog/?p=189