Re: SS, C7, Z07, ZR1 ? ....call it what you want for $100K!

Yes, I have been looking hard at that Cadillac CTS with the direct 
injection, 4 valves per, valve timing and direct injection.  I worry that 
Cadillac as a division won't maintain the consistency for its marque to 
maintain hi resale value.  When a car gets to be over $30,000 or so, it is

not a 'throw away' and resale value is critical.

I am 55 and own a 64 roadster that I bought in 91.  I belong to a Corvette

club and the members fall all over themselves every time GM comes out with

new variants.  I am just never convinced that the latest model is the BEST

GM can do.  Seems to me there are obvious GM shortcuts with each model. 
Like the boring interior with the C6 and the very expensive leather
upgrade 
option that should be standard in all the cars.

Later

Vito


"pj" <pj4380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:I0Taj.19043$yV5.7551@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Uncle_vito wrote:
>> Looks neat. I wish GM would do more than just put a supercharger on a 
>> regular corvette. Would be nice if they had a corvette engine with 
>> overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing and direct 
>> injection.  Instead they go for big displacement and a bolt on 
>> supercharger. But I guess that wouldn't be as profitable for them and
the 
>> average 80 year old Corvette owner doesn't know the difference and 
>> doesn't care.
>>  As usual, GM selling a $80,000 car for $100,000.  I only wish they
could 
>> hide it better.
>>  Vito
>>
>
> I'm a helluva lot closer to age 80 than Bob G. but, share his approach
on 
> this.  (I'd say that Bob G. has demonstrated wisdom, well beyond his 
> limited years.)   -- maybe there's hope for the boomers after all!  (8-)
>
> I must admit that quad-valve is a 'new and revolutionary' concept.  But,

> cut my teeth with OHC on an AlfaRomeo in the late '50s.
>
> Corvette owners do manage to, "muddle through" with high reliability,
good 
> gas mileage and respectable performance without running at 8500 rpm.
>
> The only good reason I see for going your route is in a formula 
> environment with a hard displacement limit.  Below 6000 rpm, pushrods
work 
> fine and give the suspension and styling guys some design slack.
>
> The blown Mustangs have done well on the street and in the marketplace
and 
> have been profitable. I can't fault Corvette for adopting what's worked 
> well for Lingenfelter or Callaway.  Us 'old farts' might tend to say
that 
> they borrowed the idea from my 'bride's' Buick.
>
> As far as 'doing more' than just a blower, how about an "off road"
Nitrous 
> option?
>
> At one time, I felt as you do but, as I've listened to the various 
> OHC-quad analyses I have to agree that it's a natural for mid- or 
> rear-engined configurations.
>
> If you value engine "features," better to spend your bucks on a Cadillac

> or Lincoln or, better yet, an Infiniti or 350Z.
>
> --
> pj
>