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

"Uncle_vito" <uncle_vito2002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:V5-dnf_Se5T21PHanZ2dnUVZ_t-hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
There are any number of cars that are not throw away at less than 20k and 
have decent resale -- Honda Accord for example.


> 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
>>
>
>
>