MR Corvette C8 - General Discussion

  • Thread starter R1600Turbo
  • 1,200 comments
  • 88,643 views
22,518
United States
Arizona
HamiltonMP427
Comparing a familay car isn't irrelevant, as there are plenty of ugly family cars around, I'm simply making the point the looks aren't determined by price and vice/versa. As for that Esprit, it wouldn't be close to £170k today, if you account for inflation it's perhaph £85k in 2019, so fair enough it's not as cheap as this Corvettes US price, but still budget compared to general supercar prices. For reference though the Crovette C7 starts at £65.5k here in the UK which is about $82k USD so the UK prices and US prices can't be compared, they are different markets and invariably we pay far more for cars here than you do in the US which is a shame.

Sure they are through development costs and implementation. If you don't think the ZR1's added price isn't an impact from developing the astetics to what they are, which is dramatically different than the base C7 or for other similar cases then you're in denial. There are other factors of course but this is one of them. A family car isn't getting nearly as much R&D effort into it as that of a sport/super/hyper car.

Yes the Espirit from 95 would be 170k USD today. I'm not using the British Pound and you shouldn't think it's universal. I found the price it was slated for at that time for the U.S. then used an inflation calculator. As for being a budget? It was only a budget compared to other European Sport cars, in America it was expensive and in reality you could get a 911 with better performance for less. As for price differential you pay far more, for imported cars due to import tax on said goods. It's not that you necessarily pay more than us and no one is comparing. I'm going to use what is familiar to me (USD obviously) and you'll the do the same and have. Point being it wasn't a budget car in this market and perhaps others.


Going back to the Esprit and mid-90's, you couldn't buy a new Ferrari in 1995 for £45k. For reference, a Ferrari 355 in 1994 was £82.5k which would be in the region of £161k in todays money, so there's no comparison, the Lotus was cheap for a supercar in it's day. My point stands, looks are not determined by price and price is not determined by looks, the Corvette is ugly IMO and that has nothing to do with it's price.

I'm aware of this, but when you have this market and not just the UK it was not cheap. The 911 was less, the Viper was less, the Corvette was less. And not your point doesn't stand. If your point stood engineer teams would have blank check resources as far as looks and functionality with said looks and still achieving low prices. I'm not saying the car looks the best ever, what I'm saying is the car is a simple base because it will be improved on as the more super car oriented versions come out. With the chance of a Halo version down the line. And as such the price will go up as well with one of the reasons being enhanced looks.[/QUOTE]
 

Dave A

TreVoR fan for life
Premium
28,177
United Kingdom
Cuddington, Cheshire
JDA1982
Sure they are through development costs and implementation. If you don't think the ZR1's added price isn't an impact from developing the astetics to what they are, which is dramatically different than the base C7 or for other similar cases then you're in denial. There are other factors of course but this is one of them. A family car isn't getting nearly as much R&D effort into it as that of a sport/super/hyper car.
No one is saying there are no development costs, what I am saying is that price does not determine if a car looks good or vice versa, that is not the same thing as what you are saying at all.

Yes the Espirit from 95 would be 170k USD today. I'm not using the British Pound and you shouldn't think it's universal. I found the price it was slated for at that time for the U.S. then used an inflation calculator.
I would be interested to see where you are getting this information from. I am using the British Pound because I am British and those are the prices that apply to me, I am aware it isn't universal much like the USD. Fact remains the Esprit was a budget supercar in the 90's, if it was more expensive in other contries that is likely due to hiked dealer comissions and costs of export (i.e.taxes and shipping) not R&D.

As for being a budget? It was only a budget compared to other European Sport cars, in America it was expensive and in reality you could get a 911 with better performance for less. As for price differential you pay far more, for imported cars due to import tax on said goods. It's not that you necessarily pay more than us and no one is comparing. I'm going to use what is familiar to me (USD obviously) and you'll the do the same and have. Point being it wasn't a budget car in this market and perhaps others.
Fair point, but the fact that it's a budget car in the market it was made in is what is relevent here, much like the Corvette costs less in the US which is the market it was made in. If I use the Corvettes UK price then the Corvette suddenly isn't that budget a supercar either, so we have to put them into thier respective primary markets for any proper analysis to work.

And not your point doesn't stand. If your point stood engineer teams would have blank check resources as far as looks and functionality with said looks and still achieving low prices.
I'm not arguing against R&D costs here, just that a car looking good or not isn't determined by it's price, there are a lot of cars that I can use. TVR's for example out performed cars far far more expensive but looked phenominal. The Honda S2000 was a budget 2 seater sportscar I really like the look of, but it wasn't more expensive than other cars in it's catergory that were IMO uglier. The Aston Martin Vantage is IMO a much nicer looking car than the Mercedes AMG GT. Whether these cars look good or not is not determined by their prices, hence why a cheap car can look nice and an expensive one can look nice or they can both look ugly. Certainly looks are engineered in a certain way, but depending on the directtion of that, the results will look good or not to the beholder.

I'm not saying the car looks the best ever, what I'm saying is the car is a simple base because it will be improved on as the more super car oriented versions come out. With the chance of a Halo version down the line. And as such the price will go up as well with one of the reasons being enhanced looks.
I'd much more appreciate the car looking nice across the lineup than having a good looking model (let's see how it ends up) at the top and the versions below it looking progressively uglier as it gets cheaper. That doesn't really follow IMO though, I usulaly find the halo cars to be uglier than the parred down versions as they are often covered in spoilers, wings and splitters and more vents etc. I don't personally go for that, but I know some people do.

Going back to my argument about looks v price, I can detail countless examples of cars that prove my point, I think you are maybe reading too much into what I am saying and over defending the C8 as a result. I understand a decision will have been made to style it based on this factor or that, and then they use R&D to achieve that goal, but they could have made the car look different and potentially better as a result for the same price.

Cheverolet didn't need to make the car look just like it does, they could have styled it differently without increasing development costs by making different choices at various stages of the process. It looks like it does because someone made a choice to design it that way based on x or y at a certain point in time.

People have even suggested subtle changes in this thread that would have improved it without affecting much else. Ultimately it is entirely possible to have two cars of similar performances and prices where one looks nice but the other looks ugly.
 
Last edited:

JvM

~
Premium
1,512
Finland
Finland
Looks a bit... off from some angles for me for sure. But with removing the wing, slight lowering and a more aggressive wheel fitment would help a lot already.
 
22,518
United States
Arizona
HamiltonMP427
No one is saying there are no development costs, what I am saying is that price does not determine if a car looks good or vice versa, that is not the same thing as what you are saying at all.

Never said anyone was. Again what I said is development costs play a role in the end results of how a car looks and other areas like performance, parts, materials and so forth. Thus things get eliminated or altered to make compromise at the cost of something else. That's just how it is in in design engineering and I've seen it first hand. That's not to say this car couldn't look better or have taken the clay model design we've seen more to heart. However, for what it is and what they're actually trying to achieve with the car I think it's a good start.

I would be interested to see where you are getting this information from. I am using the British Pound because I am British and those are the prices that apply to me, I am aware it isn't universal much like the USD. Fact remains the Esprit was a budget supercar in the 90's, if it was more expensive in other contries that is likely due to hiked dealer comissions and costs of export (i.e.taxes and shipping) not R&D.

And I'm doing the same... Also no where did I ever say the Espirit was more expensive due to R&D or hint at such. I just simply rebuked your claim that it was a budget super car, still do so and have alread listed cars cheaper than it. Much like how the Pound and prices within it relate to you the same goes for the Dollar to me. And just like the Vette was more expensive in your country the same was probably the case with the Lotus but as said other cars that weren't from here in the category were cheaper (e.g. 911).

Fair point, but the fact that it's a budget car in the market it was made in is what is relevent here, much like the Corvette costs less in the US which is the market it was made in. If I use the Corvettes UK price then the Corvette suddenly isn't that budget a supercar either, so we have to put them into thier respective primary markets for any proper analysis to work.

Cool it was a budget in a singular market, probably why it didn't make any ground break sales or really beat out those it was supposedly a budget to, which isn't even really the point to the main topic. I simply disagreed with you on the Lotus being a budget super car, there really isn't more to discuss on it.

I'm not arguing against R&D costs here, just that a car looking good or not isn't determined by it's price, there are a lot of cars that I can use. TVR's for example out performed cars far far more expensive but looked phenominal. The Honda S2000 was a budget 2 seater sportscar I really like the look of, but it wasn't more expensive than other cars in it's catergory that were IMO uglier. The Aston Martin Vantage is IMO a much nicer looking car than the Mercedes AMG GT. Whether these cars look good or not is not determined by their prices, hence why a cheap car can look nice and an expensive one can look nice or they can both look ugly. Certainly looks are engineered in a certain way, but depending on the directtion of that, the results will look good or not to the beholder.

No these cars looks as a whole and what could have been more ascetically pleasing are dictated by the development which in the end effects price. The place you're arguing from is a subjective idea on looks, when I'm not talking about that. You're going to think certain cars look good or bad regardless of engineering and designer choices made that led to that final look.

I've already long said that if you like or dislike the looks that you're personal choice, but if your claiming that they could of done x, y, z and other cars in completely different categories look better. It's a bit of a leap and to me should be logically looked at.

I'd much more appreciate the car looking nice across the lineup than having a good looking model (let's see how it ends up) at the top and the versions below it looking progressively uglier as it gets cheaper. That doesn't really follow IMO though, I usulaly find the halo cars to be uglier than the parred down versions as they are often covered in spoilers, wings and splitters and more vents etc. I don't personally go for that, but I know some people do.

Base model does look good, it's not really that ugly of a car and it seems quit the exaggeration to suggest it is. Again though that you're personal view point. Despite what you personally go for or not, those parts they're "covered" with actually have a purpose due to the nature of what said halo car is trying to achieve.

Going back to my argument about looks v price, I can detail countless examples of cars that prove my point, I think you are maybe reading too much into what I am saying and over defending the C8 as a result. I understand a decision will have been made to style it based on this factor or that, and then they use R&D to achieve that goal, but they could have made the car look different and potentially better as a result for the same price.

Going back to it why? We've hashed it out at several points in this post and previous ones... I'm only defending engineering choices that came to this final product.

Cheverolet didn't need to make the car look just like it does, they could have styled it differently without increasing development costs by making different choices at various stages of the process. It looks like it does because someone made a choice to design it that way based on x or y at a certain point in time.

Such as? See this is where you leave a subjective realm or opinion and you encroach on the reality of choices they made (again). How do you know they could have styled it differently without increasing costs? It's interesting how they carried over design features of other cars in their line up and the previous gen Corvette styling for better or worse. IT is X or Y that dictates why you design something a certain way which is usually stipulated by the cost.

People have even suggested subtle changes in this thread that would have improved it without affecting much else. Ultimately it is entirely possible to have two cars of similar performances and prices where one looks nice but the other looks ugly.

Quite a few things are possible the fact of the matter is we don't know all that much if said changes would make the car perform the same or keep the price in the same area.

At the end of the day you seem to adamantly believe that a group of designers and engineers made the wrong choices and thus a car was produced that to you looks ugly and could have had more effort put into it. Considering that this car has been in development for about four years I wouldn't say that they were at all short on effort but to each their own. I honestly don't see any reason to further press on with this cause it's just a reciprocating re post about design choices, R&D and the final price and if that effects the final looks, a Lotus Espirit (that you never even said what era, I had to guess) and if or not it looks good which is subjective.
 

Dave A

TreVoR fan for life
Premium
28,177
United Kingdom
Cuddington, Cheshire
JDA1982
@LMSCorvetteGT2 I know a lot of this argument is subjective and I hope that none of this has come across as though I'm picking you out in a negative or nasty way where I am reluctant to accept anything you say simply because we dissagreed at the start and therefore we must dissagree on everything from now on. That's most certainly not the case and if anything I enjoy responding to well though out posts even if we don't agree on everything.

One thing I do agree with is that there is little point debating this point further. I don't think either of us is properly grasping the point the other is making, but like you said, no need to carry on and on, each to thier own 👍.
 
22,518
United States
Arizona
HamiltonMP427
@LMSCorvetteGT2 I know a lot of this argument is subjective and I hope that none of this has come across as though I'm picking you out in a negative or nasty way where I am reluctant to accept anything you say simply because we dissagreed at the start and therefore we must dissagree on everything from now on. That's most certainly not the case and if anything I enjoy responding to well though out posts even if we don't agree on everything.

One thing I do agree with is that there is little point debating this point further. I don't think either of us is properly grasping the point the other is making, but like you said, no need to carry on and on, each to thier own 👍.

Why would I think you're being negative toward me? It's a debate, no where along the line do we need to ever come to an agreement, we're just hashing out view points in a setting that allows it, in a civil manner. I can and do respect your view of how you perceive this car and you seem to be doing the same likewise for me so all is well. I'm not mad or anything of the sort and I don't believe I've have given that tone. I just see this being a rinse and repeat argument and thus feel it's better to move on since we're going to believe what we believe either way. Glad we can agree to move forward, and thanks.
 
39,007
As for the Espirit which year are you talking about that supposedly the car cost that much because in 1995 the car was 80k and there were plenty of options for performance cars with much less expense and problems.
in America it was expensive and in reality you could get a 911 with better performance for less
I just simply rebuked your claim that it was a budget super car, still do so and have alread listed cars cheaper than it.
You keep saying things like this, and it hasn't actually been true once. The Esprit wasn't as cheap as it was in the UK, but it was still substantially cheaper than the equivalent Ferrari and 911 Turbo that it could go hit for hit with; and no Carrera or Corvette could touch it until after the turn of the millenium; nevermind in 1995 when the Corvette was still the C4, the Carrera was still the 993 and the Viper (which compared to the other two at least on paper had similar performance) was still barely driveable.

Yes the Espirit from 95 would be 170k USD today. I'm not using the British Pound and you shouldn't think it's universal. I found the price it was slated for at that time for the U.S. then used an inflation calculator.
Which is a strange argument to make, because we already know that the C8 Corvette won't cost $80,000 using the same inflation rate.


Quite a few things are possible the fact of the matter is we don't know all that much if said changes would make the car perform the same or keep the price in the same area.
How much did the two restylings of the Camaro have in the past two years change its price or performance? The one the Mustang got last year?


We don't "know" if styling the C8 any differently from how it is would have cost more money; but it's a far greater leap to assume that the C8 as it is styled is the cheapest way GM could have built it, or that a car still primarily made of fiberglass would somehow be substantially more expensive with even minor (read: less then the two examples above) design tweaks, or that the car as it is is the perfect engineering/styling fusion for the price they are charging for it just because they worked on it for several years.
You want to talk about R&D costs as if they are the be all end all even when it's hard to take you just insisting that that's why they did everything that they did with the car's styling, of all things; but GM could very have spent sat least as much money on the C8's development as most of its competitors would have been afforded anyway, if not substantially more in the case of the smaller ones, so how does it even apply?
 
Last edited:
9,393
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
I'm surprised people think this won't be a roaring success, it has gotten alot more people who would be looking at European cars into getting it, people want that Cheap Mid Engine Supercar.

The prices they are claiming it will be over here though, not exactly cheap so not sure how it will go, but they have committed to RHD production.

Hopefully this gets other car makers interested into making a Similar competitor.
 
347
Austria
Austria
I'm surprised people think this won't be a roaring success, it has gotten alot more people who would be looking at European cars into getting it, people want that Cheap Mid Engine Supercar.

The prices they are claiming it will be over here though, not exactly cheap so not sure how it will go, but they have committed to RHD production.

Hopefully this gets other car makers interested into making a Similar competitor.
Except people who buy supercars don't want something cheap. They want something exclusive. They don't want something ugly, they want a design that looks superior. They don't want an automatic gear box, they want a race-like sequencial gear box.

This is just a car for all the blind "MURICA FIRST" people that want a car cheap enough so that their credit get okayed , but loud enough so that the sidewalk workers envy them.

At the end of the day, it's not a big deal. Since they wanted to switch to mid engine, it had to be a drastic design change. They messed it up with the C8, but the C9 will be better. Let's just acknowledge the great job they did for all the previous generations of corvette.
 

FoRiZon

(Banned)
8,645
Singapore
Singapore
Except people who buy supercars don't want something cheap. They want something exclusive.
No. Some people do appreciate the perfomance by actually driving it rather than sitting in the garage collecting dust.

They don't want something ugly, they want a design that looks superior.
Youre not dictate someone else tastes. Plus some people doesn't only buy cars for looks or showoffs, but other factor like performance or history.

This is just a car for all the blind "MURICA FIRST" people that want a car cheap enough so that their credit get okayed , but loud enough so that the sidewalk workers envy them.
Oh how rich of you.



Logic is if people didn't like C8 because its cheap, ugly, and American, they can, and already have, choose to buy another car instead. This car clearly has attracted interests to some people and there's nothing you can do about it.
 

Joey D

Swedespeed
Premium
44,001
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
They don't want something ugly, they want a design that looks superior.

And yet, people flock to Ferrari, which hasn't had a decent looking car in what? 20 years?

This is just a car for all the blind "MURICA FIRST" people that want a car cheap enough so that their credit get okayed , but loud enough so that the sidewalk workers envy them.

I think you're thinking of the Dodge Challenger here (despite it being Canadian).
 
8,666
United States
Marin County
Except people who buy supercars don't want something cheap. They want something exclusive. They don't want something ugly, they want a design that looks superior. They don't want an automatic gear box, they want a race-like sequencial gear box.

This is just a car for all the blind "MURICA FIRST" people that want a car cheap enough so that their credit get okayed , but loud enough so that the sidewalk workers envy them.

At the end of the day, it's not a big deal. Since they wanted to switch to mid engine, it had to be a drastic design change. They messed it up with the C8, but the C9 will be better. Let's just acknowledge the great job they did for all the previous generations of corvette.

Try not to project your own subjectivity via unprovable/dubious/false-absolute claims. You can just say you don't like it.

The C8 is probably the first substantial effort to democratize (as much as I hate that word) the Supercar, possibly ever. The original NSX was too expensive to pull off that, and the Pantera was always too obscure. 500hp isn't exactly a lot, relatively, these days. However, it's still a lot absolutely and should still be pretty face ripping. I'm not quite in the position to spend $60k on a car....but honestly in a few years I could be eyeing a C8...
 
Last edited:

McLaren

Premium
41,186
United States
Texas
Partyboy78
Seriously?

Maybe the introductory price has an impact on this one.
Car could've been $70,000 and it'd still likely have its first year orders filled. It's a radical new design for a timeless classic that's been touted for a number of years ("But when!?"), much like the Supra.

This will put a lot of ease on GM for the next year as reviews come out and highlight any criticisms for them to build upon.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
29,981
United States
Mile High City
Try not to project your own subjectivity via unprovable/dubious/false-absolute claims. You can just say you don't like it.

The C8 is probably the first substantial effort to democratize (as much as I hate that word) the Supercar, possibly ever. The original NSX was too expensive to pull off that, and the Pantera was always too obscure. 500hp isn't exactly a lot, relatively, these days. However, it's still a lot absolutely and should still be pretty face ripping. I'm not quite in the position to spend $60k on a car....but honestly in a few years I could be eyeing a C8...

I think it depends on your definition of "democratize". Both NSX generations have done it, but not at the (inflation adjusted) price point you're talking about.
 
9,393
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
Except people who buy supercars don't want something cheap. They want something exclusive. They don't want something ugly, they want a design that looks superior. They don't want an automatic gear box, they want a race-like sequencial gear box.

This is just a car for all the blind "MURICA FIRST" people that want a car cheap enough so that their credit get okayed , but loud enough so that the sidewalk workers envy them.

At the end of the day, it's not a big deal. Since they wanted to switch to mid engine, it had to be a drastic design change. They messed it up with the C8, but the C9 will be better. Let's just acknowledge the great job they did for all the previous generations of corvette.
Said the most Subjective person ever, the styling isn't that bad from my view it has that low fat stance which comes off really well in person, it's miles cheaper then say an R8 Which it would be it's best competition at this point, interior quality from the video I have seen on that blue one at a showroom looks pretty high quality too, leather everywhere minimal plastic in the interior.

I don't see how this car isn't just a massive leap in the car world given the price they are offering a High-performance V8 Mid engine car that can go sub 3 seconds to 60.

It's the Supercar for the masses.

To think this car in America atleast isn't going to be much More in price then a Supra in Base form and it far exceeds anything the Supra is capable of while being a more exotic platform proves this imo.
 
8,049
Germany
Hamburg
zzz_pt
The C8 is probably the first substantial effort to democratize (as much as I hate that word) the Supercar, possibly ever. The original NSX was too expensive to pull off that, and the Pantera was always too obscure. 500hp isn't exactly a lot, relatively, these days. However, it's still a lot absolutely and should still be pretty face ripping. I'm not quite in the position to spend $60k on a car....but honestly in a few years I could be eyeing a C8...

The Corvette won't be nowhere as cheap in Europe or other big markets as it will be in the US. In some european countries, due to the big cc engine, the taxes will push up the price between 40-50%, easily. And that's already a lot of money for the base model (the ugliest one) without any bells and whistles.

I'd be surprised if a C8 with an aero pack and some extras would cost less than 90.000€ in some European countries. The C7 with the Z51 package costed 59.000 dollars in the US and 74.000 Euros in Germany, for example. That's over 20.000 dollars difference. In other countries the difference is even higher, since Germany is one of the countries in Europe with the cheapest cars.

The NSX at least had the looks and the aura to pull it off. Oh, and Senna. That's worth something for sure.
 
8,666
United States
Marin County
I think it depends on your definition of "democratize". Both NSX generations have done it, but not at the (inflation adjusted) price point you're talking about.

Clearly both generations are not as cheap as the C8. In fact, the base price of the NSX when it was released was higher in 1991 dollars than the C8 is in 2019 dollars. That's pretty wild. Reasonably priced...absolutely. But not genuinely "affordable"*. I kind of want to claim that the new NSX is better value than the old one...it has kind of democratized the hypercar** with it's brutal hybrid awd system. Where the C8 is a budget Ferrari 488 (though...is it? I'm not sure there is much of an equivalent comparison anymore) the NSX is a budget Porsche 918. The old NSX was more of an exotic sports car than a supercar I would further argue, possibly incompatibly with my previous post. :lol: All that is to say that the old NSX, the new NSX, and the C8 are all kind of chasing different targets and not easily comparable.

*Seriously dubious, but I do think the C8 is affordable for a good chunk of the American middle class
**I really hate the term hypercar...but a hybrid, dual-clutch, twin turbo, super-handling-all-wheel-drive, mid engine car sure has a lot of...things. And I'm pretty sure an NSX would lay waste to anything short of a 918 on a twisty canyon road.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
29,981
United States
Mile High City
Reasonably priced...absolutely. But not genuinely "affordable"*.

That's such a subjective concept. I think your point is clear enough, which is that the C8 brings a level of performance never before seen at that price (in the US). Is that so different from the usual corvette though?

It's the Supercar for the masses.

One of the really interesting things that I'm finding in this thread is how much difference mid vs. front engine seems to make. I don't remember folks calling the Z06 a supercar before (maybe they were and I just didn't notice). Somehow the fact that the engine is in the middle has transformed the verbiage. Not the horsepower.

I wonder, though, whether there is such a thing as a supercar for the masses. For something to be a supercar, I feel like it needs a rare, somewhat unattainable quality about it. The best of the best. It seems like the C8 is just helping to set a benchmark for what can be expected of a sports car these days. I could certainly be wrong about this too, but at least to me "supercar" always had the connotation of being a car with superpowers that set it apart from the average, albeit athletic, cars. Maybe the corvette has been and always will be Batman. Not really a supercar, but operating at that level anyway.

47955988-z06-and-gs-batman-emblems-img_0572.jpg
 
8,666
United States
Marin County
@Danoff

It's a semantic & classification nightmare, for sure. I'm gonna do a classification tree to try to rationalize it.

Performance Automobile
Sports Car - Purpose built for performance with minimal compromise
Roadster (MX-5, Z4, MR-S)
Sports Car (GT86, 370z, Base Corvette, 911)

Exotic Sports Car (Spyker C8 - probably not many in this category)
Super Sports Car (High performance Corvette, Viper, Lotus Esprit, NSX, GT-R, 911 Turbo)
Exotic Super Sports Car (V8 Ferraris 308-488, V10 Lamborghinis, Most Mclarens, etc)
General Performance Car - Performance oriented cars tailored towards usability
Muscle Car (Charger, Chevelle)
Pony Car (Mustang, Camaro)

Super Pony Car (Shelby, ZL1 Hellcat)
Drag Pony Car (Demon, Super Snake)
Executive Performance Car (M3, AMG C Class, etc)
Super Saloon (M5)
Coupe (Prelude, etc) Functionally Extinct
Hot Hatch (Gti)

Super Hot Hatch (Civic Type R)
Hot Mini Hatch (Yaris GRMN, Swift Sport)
Grand Touring Car (Q60, Lexus RC, etc)
Exotic Grand Touring Car (Aston Martin DB11, AMG-GT)
Exotic Super Grand Touring Car (812, SLR)
Supercar - Purpose built to be the highest level for it's era
Supercar (Countach, F50, Enzo, Mclaren F1, etc)
Hypercar (Veyron - Cant think of anything else I would categorize in this level)

^This is hardly exhaustive.

So yeah, a C8 is probably not a supercar. It could potentially be a super sports car. So maybe we can say the C8 differs from the C7 by democratizing the aesthetics of exotic cars. Or something. :lol:

 
Last edited:
9,393
Australia
Western Sydney
mustafur
The engine configuration has everything to do with it, Front engined Rear Wheel drive is the standard Sports car layout where as Mid engined Rear Wheel drive being much more exotic with less compromises is more what you picture as a Supercar, of course it depends on what is powering it, I wouldn't call an MR2 or an MGF a Supercar.

But it's a weird one there isn't exactly a technical specification for something to be a Supercar just what we perceive one to be.
 
5,286
Sick_Cylinder
I think sub 3 seconds 0-60 makes it a supercar - and that has a lot to do with the extra traction from the new mid-engine layout.

Personally I think it will be massively successful in America - there are a huge number of former Corvette owners who will want to try it out.

It doesn't seem any more ugly or overstyled than many other modern cars and will probably grow on me with time.

Whether it can be a success in Europe - I'm not sure - American standards of fit and finish have fallen short in the past, but maybe this time it will have the quality needed.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
29,981
United States
Mile High City
But you wouldn't say only the cars that are faster are Supercars.

I don't know what makes a supercar to be honest. It's a hard question, and each new model year makes the question harder it seems.