Then why did you just buy a 911 if the article is crap?

 

I think a big part of the problem is that people who can afford a 50k car don't want something that's all about performance and is lacking in refinement. The demographic who is typically OK with a rough ride and bare bones/crappy interior on a daily basis is in their teens to late 20's, and that group of folks usually can't afford a 50k car.

Liked the article. Thanks for the good find.

 

He makes at least one good point- the vette is a bit "chach", and doesn't appeal to the younger crowd the way it once did. But claiming it isn't durable? Or insurable? I checked on a 2008 C6 and the insurance was almost exactly the same as my '03 S2000.

I don't know anyone who's dream car is a G35. And why would anyone even compare a G35 to a Corvette? I doubt there is a single person anywhere who is cross shopping these cars.

Overpriced? It may be. But you could buy two corvettes, AND a set of gold chains, for the price of the GT3

 

I wanted to agree, but this article is just off-base and sounds like it was written by a Jeremy Clarkson wannabe. At least back your column with factual information.

The Corvette has never been an affordable car for the masses. The MSRP was above $30k in 1989. When the Mustang came out in '64, base MSRP for it was $2300 and the Corvette was still over $4000. Basically, the same ratio as it is today ($30k vs $50k).

The Grand Sport has revised gear ratios, dry-sump oiling system, differential cooler, a rear-mounted battery, revised suspension, wider tires allowed by the wider fenders, and larger Z06 brakes with duct cooling. Yeah...just a standard Vette that looks like a Z06.

The Corvette may not be as well-rounded as some cars, but it has its merits. It has remained below 3300lbs which allows it to be extremely quick and remain fuel-efficient. The latest models handle well and are livable as a daily. The C6 interior is not amazing, but it deserves a bit more credit than it receives.

 

Based on the comments on the site, Edmunds is catering towards the non-car-savvy reader who shops based on tired stereotypes and opinionated articles rather than thinking for themselves. Even if a Corvette was released with all quirks fixed, they'd shun it as it's not the fashionable car to drive.

I really don't care for many GM cars, but the Corvette has continually improved and remains a performance bargain. I hate to see major magazines perpetuate stereotypes and influence readers.

 

On the contrary, the vette is just abuot the only thing Chevy has done right over the long term besides the Tahoe/suburban line which is still popular.

Who cares if it's 50k new? A friend of mine just bought a white c6, above average options, 9k miles, one owner, a year old, for about 25k.

 

I'm in agreeance with the article for the most part. Not in the factual bits (I haven't seen what the Grand sport pacakge is, etc).

The corvette shape hasn't drastically changed since the 80s. And while it's done well for a 911, the Vette looks outdated in current form. That's just subjective of course.

I also agree that sometimes, style is more than substance. The Vette is a beast in any trim - but it just doesn't scream refinement in the looks department.

And the interior is horrible. C'mon, the S doesn't have the most updated feel in terms of interior layout, but it's still better than the vette.

That grey colour interior is so 1980s....

 

The article wasn't a fact piece....it was an column based on the writers opinion. And going fast wasn't a debate because he admits that the vette IS fast.

 

Because the 911 fills a need for me the 'Vette could not, and I already have cars that fill the need the Vette would. Had there been a GrandSport when I bought my MX5 I might have the GrandSport now.

 

It's 100% an opinion piece. I found it amusing. The corvette is an amazing performance value and sports car. But I'll never own one, either.