Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS
Wow, no offense, but you are blind. Look back at the Jalopnik article. There is a superimposed image of both. I have no doubts Jalopnik was given unauthorized pictures (as they have stated) of the C7 and made a rendition of said images. Auto manufactures rarely, rarely, one more time rarely change designs this close to production.
The point is, if you wanna know what the C7 will look like, the Jalopnik version is probably 99% accurate. (they choose to render the ZR1 version instead of the base model)
Maybe somebody remembers the photos Popular Science (Mechanics?)had of the GMT800 tahoes and avalanches (2007+) without camo, from an article from 2003 or so. Identical to what was produced.
|
I see a lot of bulky camo. I don't see any clear body lines. I don't see any side vents. There may or may not be hood vents. I can't see the shape of the rear glass. I can't see the design of the front fascia. I can't see the design of the rear fascia. So since I can't accurately see the details of the C7 that was caught testing, I can't honestly say that the rendering is accurate.
All we can really see are the exhaust tips, and the general profile -both of which would be pretty easy to guess based on what we've seen & heard about the C7. Oh, and there is the roof. Jalopnik got that wrong. Its keeps the reverse mohawk that the C6 has, where as Jalopnik's rendering featuers a flat roof. And then there are the tail lights. Jalopnik said they were supposed to be 'camaro-esque' while the spyshot indicates a much more circular design. Its going to take a lot more than that to convince me that they were accurate.
I don't recall the Popular Mechanics article (I assume its them, PopSci doesn't cover cars very much) but I do remember the Motor Trend renderings of the 'Z28':
Its kinda similar to the ZL1, but then again not really. Ignoring the name, MT identified that it would have a different hood & fascia & spoiler & so forth, but all their guesses as to how those things would look were wrong. And that rendering
they made was based on a 'detailed clay model' about a year and a half to two years ahead of when production was expected to start -sound familiar?
I'm not saying that Jalopnik can't be right, but we simply have no reason to actually believe them right now. I suspect that when we see the final version of the C7 (next years Detroit autoshow?) we'll see that Jalopnik was 'kinda right' but not too accurate, like the Motor Trend 'Z28' (ZL1)