Pontiac coming back?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

More totally subjective assessments.

And I think you mean the 1990 ZR-1.

‘89. My first “big boy” assignment at GM was to set up the service plan for taking the C4 ZR1 out of production. That experience led to me calling the C4 ZR1 the best car that should have never been built.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

But you don't consider the Corvette team always wanted to do mid-engine as a forewarning of what was to come if they ever could get it approved?

If it wasn't for GM's bankruptcy, the C7 would have been the mid-engine 'Vette. The C7 was a stopgap generation.

Spot on. Every word. But give the C7 team the credit for how well they executed the Z06 and ZR1, especially since they weren’t given a ton of money to get it done.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

‘89. My first “big boy” assignment at GM was to set up the service plan for taking the C4 ZR1 out of production. That experience led to me calling the C4 ZR1 the best car that should have never been built.

That's a gap in my Corvette ZR1 knowledge. I've always considered '90 to be the first production year, perhaps wrongfully so.

Tell me more! I can Google but I'd rather hear it from an ex-GM employee.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

That's a gap in my Corvette ZR1 knowledge. I've always considered '90 to be the first production year, perhaps wrongfully so.

Tell me more! I can Google but I'd rather hear it from an ex-GM employee.

Readers Digest version…

• There were only a few built for 1989. I’m not certain if those were closely held or if they got into public hands. All I know is I had to account for them when doing the end of production. Specifically, I had to account for VINs and there were some ‘89 VINs
• Most of the cars sold were ‘90 and ‘91.
• There were three mechanically different engine arrangements. This is the root of why I say it’s the best car that should have never been built.
• ‘89-‘91 were 2-bolt main
• ‘92-95 were 4-bolt main. Why’s that a big deal? Because blocks and cranks are suddenly not interchangeable. There was less than 2,000 4-bolt vehicles built. But at the end of production, only 4-bolt main product was available to support service. So most service issues would have to be managed at a long-block level of content.
• ‘92-‘93 increased to 405(?) hp.
• ‘94-‘95 had similar hardware as ‘92-‘93. I believe the heads were different but I can’t recall how different or whether they were interchangeable.
• ‘94-‘95 had different PCM and wiring harness. I can’t recall if there were mechanical differences between the ‘92-‘93 and ‘94-‘95, but I do recall that the engines are not interchangeable, at least because of the PCM and wiring harness. If I recall correctly, there were (3) different designs of cylinder heads.
• At the end of the run I was at the Mercury Marine plant in Stillwater to watch the last several engines come off the line. I bought the last 20 or so complete engines off the line for service operations. They were boxed up and shipped out to an engine remanufacturer I used for other engine programs. They were only available to authorized ZR1 dealers upon confirmation of a VIN. That’s why I know there were ‘89s. We had ‘89 VINs in the database.
• But the fun fact was, since most of the vehicles sold were ‘89-‘91, the engines I had set aside would not be able to use those engines UNLESS they also purchased a PCM and wiring harness. Dealers also had to forward a $20,000 core charge for each engine replaced. This was to make certain that the removed engine a)actually came out of a ZR1 and b) to start to set up a remanufacturing process for the engine.

Parts level service also had to be managed by VIN, since some of the engine content changes were running changes made in the middle of a model year, without any assurance of retrofit.

Many of the key suppliers of parts for the ‘89-‘91 vintage were out of business. In some cases, their going out of business drove product changes. In other instances, product changes drove original suppliers out of business. In our planning, where we could replace a ‘91 part with a ‘95 part we did, even if it meant replacing other mating parts.

For some of the major parts we had to find new suppliers altogether because of original suppliers going bankrupt. This meant paying what amounted to prototype prices for a small store of service parts. We even had to find a new cylinder head casting supplier because the foundry(ies) that produced the original units went bankrupt. 4-digit pricing, first digit NOT a 1. And that was before machining and valve train assembly. Remember, this is a DOHC.

So…first design, where most of the volume is, are 2-bolt main with cylinder head design “A”. Less than 2,000 vehicles are 4-bolt design, so different blocks and cranks. And those <2,000 have cylinder head designs “B” or “C”, depending on when they were built. And most of the service parts available were of vintage “C”. What could go wrong?

So much for Readers Digest.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Readers Digest version…

• There were only a few built for 1989. I’m not certain if those were closely held or if they got into public hands. All I know is I had to account for them when doing the end of production. Specifically, I had to account for VINs and there were some ‘89 VINs
• Most of the cars sold were ‘90 and ‘91.
• There were three mechanically different engine arrangements. This is the root of why I say it’s the best car that should have never been built.
• ‘89-‘91 were 2-bolt main
• ‘92-95 were 4-bolt main. Why’s that a big deal? Because blocks and cranks are suddenly not interchangeable. There was less than 2,000 4-bolt vehicles built. But at the end of production, only 4-bolt main product was available to support service. So most service issues would have to be managed at a long-block level of content.
• ‘92-‘93 increased to 405(?) hp.
• ‘94-‘95 had similar hardware as ‘92-‘93. I believe the heads were different but I can’t recall how different or whether they were interchangeable.
• ‘94-‘95 had different PCM and wiring harness. I can’t recall if there were mechanical differences between the ‘92-‘93 and ‘94-‘95, but I do recall that the engines are not interchangeable, at least because of the PCM and wiring harness. If I recall correctly, there were (3) different designs of cylinder heads.
• At the end of the run I was at the Mercury Marine plant in Stillwater to watch the last several engines come off the line. I bought the last 20 or so complete engines off the line for service operations. They were boxed up and shipped out to an engine remanufacturer I used for other engine programs. They were only available to authorized ZR1 dealers upon confirmation of a VIN. That’s why I know there were ‘89s. We had ‘89 VINs in the database.
• But the fun fact was, since most of the vehicles sold were ‘89-‘91, the engines I had set aside would not be able to use those engines UNLESS they also purchased a PCM and wiring harness. Dealers also had to forward a $20,000 core charge for each engine replaced. This was to make certain that the removed engine a)actually came out of a ZR1 and b) to start to set up a remanufacturing process for the engine.

Parts level service also had to be managed by VIN, since some of the engine content changes were running changes made in the middle of a model year, without any assurance of retrofit.

Many of the key suppliers of parts for the ‘89-‘91 vintage were out of business. In some cases, their going out of business drove product changes. In other instances, product changes drove original suppliers out of business. In our planning, where we could replace a ‘91 part with a ‘95 part we did, even if it meant replacing other mating parts.

For some of the major parts we had to find new suppliers altogether because of original suppliers going bankrupt. This meant paying what amounted to prototype prices for a small store of service parts. We even had to find a new cylinder head casting supplier because the foundry(ies) that produced the original units went bankrupt. 4-digit pricing, first digit NOT a 1. And that was before machining and valve train assembly. Remember, this is a DOHC.

So…first design, where most of the volume is, are 2-bolt main with cylinder head design “A”. Less than 2,000 vehicles are 4-bolt design, so different blocks and cranks. And those <2,000 have cylinder head designs “B” or “C”, depending on when they were built. And most of the service parts available were of vintage “C”. What could go wrong?

So much for Readers Digest.

That's wild! I appreciate the long form, there's some great history there for all of us to file away. Thanks for sharing.

I've watched a few segments on the C4 ZR1 over the last year and I once thought maybe, if I can find a decent driver-quality example, it's something I might like to have. I hadn't gotten to my Camaro-levels of enthusiast knowledge with C4 Corvettes yet, and had no idea about the potential adventure maintaining or sourcing parts for one of those engines can be. I still think they're awesome cars and they certainly captured my attention back then, as a kid, and it's a car I still admire now.

The ~$59k MSRP of a ZR1 back in 1990 is a good reminder that the C8 is a stunningly good value today given the advancements and increases in performance.

[102SS]

I had a chance to by a 92 ZR1 for a good price in 1998 but I decided to pass on it.

My main concern was getting service parts like a water pump in the future.

Besides I drive my cars like I stole them and I figured that is no way to treat a future collectable.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Spot on. Every word. But give the C7 team the credit for how well they executed the Z06 and ZR1, especially since they weren’t given a ton of money to get it done.

For a stopgap, the C7 was a great product! It's hard to look at the C7 with what we have in the C8 now( ignoring the mid-engine factor). Like comparing the C8 interior to the C7's.

But viewing the C7 during the timeframe it was available and not having the C8 distorting ones view, it was a great vehicle despite the limited funds they had it developing it. Again viewing the C7's interior independently, it was an awesome interior and a huge upgrade for the Corvette. No longer had to make excuses for it( you're not buying the 'Vette for the interior).

The only big issue exclusive to the C7 Corvette( eliminating the A8 shudder issues as that was a general issue, not Corvette issue) was the Z06 overheating easily on track days. But I imagine the LT4 being what it was is due to those limited funds and doing the best with what they had. Though I know for those who don't track( the majority), they loved the LT4 powered Z06.

[Evergreen6]

I'm stuck on the C4 ZR1 now... Came across this great episode on the car by Jason Cammisa for Hagerty.

[Evergreen6]

And a nice driving video of a '94 ZR1 by someone who appears to know how to drive well.

Blah blah...he starts it up at around 4:15start and takes off at 5:45

[genxer]

Originally Posted by olrocker

There are people, some of whom are on this forum, who would tell you the mentality of the Corvette dying when it goes all electric is the same “get off my lawn” mentality I’m accused of.

The flip-up or fixed headlight debate is not what this is about. They were fixed from 1953-62. Round or square tail lights? No, the square tail lights first appeared on the ‘91 ZL1.

It’s about the look of the Corvette that was always purely American and not trying to imitate Ferrari. Or anyone else. The long nose/short deck, when you look out over the cowl and see the hood a mile in front of you. It always looked “right”.

THAT has always been a Corvette.

I'll agree with the side you're taking.
C6 is peak Corvette, but it's not optimized for weight distribution. Imagine how much more appealing, if any ZR1 had an Al big-block! 582?

Modern Vettes have always aimed to be more acceptable for rich guys to show off. Collectible Pontiacs auction for big bucks. In that regard they should re-badge C8 as a Pontiac and sell them as a sub-brand under Caddy dealers.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

I'm stuck on the C4 ZR1 now... Came across this great episode on the car by Jason Cammisa for Hagerty.

Jason C. Is one of my favorite auto journalists. Awesome piece.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by genxer

I'll agree with the side you're taking.
C6 is peak Corvette, but it's not optimized for weight distribution. Imagine how much more appealing, if any ZR1 had an Al big-block! 582?

Modern Vettes have always aimed to be more acceptable for rich guys to show off. Collectible Pontiacs auction for big bucks. In that regard they should re-badge C8 as a Pontiac and sell them as a sub-brand under Caddy dealers.

I don’t have a problem with the C8 as a super car at all. It’s an amazing performance car that absolutely rivals Ferraris, Lambos, McLarens, you name it.

The fact that it’s from GM to me makes it even better. Chrysler no longer makes the Viper. The Ford GT is super limited production and a - gasp - V6. GM is really the only American company building an attainable Supercar with a proper V8.

It’s just not a Corvette

If anything they could - and should - have created the Corvette sub-brand and, as some rumors that actually were in the air a few years ago, call this one the “Zora” and continue the front engine/manual gearbox as the Stingray.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

I don’t have a problem with the C8 as a super car at all. It’s an amazing performance car that absolutely rivals Ferraris, Lambos, McLarens, you name it.

The fact that it’s from GM to me makes it even better. Chrysler no longer makes the Viper. The Ford GT is super limited production and a - gasp - V6. GM is really the only American company building an attainable Supercar with a proper V8.

It’s just not a Corvette

If anything they could - and should - have created the Corvette sub-brand and, as some rumors that actually were in the air a few years ago, call this one the “Zora” and continue the front engine/manual gearbox as the Stingray.

Zora is coming and it will be a beast. It will be a magnitude of change above the C8 variants currently on the street. So in a since, there already is a Corvette portfolio bordering on a sub-brand.

• Stingray: base version priced to be accessible to traditional Corvette buyers. It can, however, easily be optioned out of the reach of the average car buyer.
• E-Ray: Wide-body, pushrod based with front e-motor to provide traction for ridiculous acceleration.
• Z06: Wide-body track beast with a sophisticated flat-planed DOHC.
• ZR1: Still yet to come. Most think it will be a wide-body twin-turbo DOHC, basically a boosted Z06. I believe it will save the twin turbos for Zora and instead add a front e-motor to solve the one lingering problem with the Z06. Traction. We’ll see soon enough.
• Zora: Still yet to come. This will be all the goodies wrapped in one package. Wide-body. Flat-planed DOHC, twin-turbos, front e-motor. 1,000 plus hp.

Whether or not a sedan and/or a crossover (think Purosanque) get added to the portfolio is yet to be seen.

This sort of parallels the Challenger portfolio that went from base V6 all the way up to Demon 170 and priced accordingly. Or the Mustang lineup which goes from EcoBoost all thee way up to Darkhorse with each step priced (or overpriced) accordingly. But Corvette has a higher starting point and higher priced top ends. Given that we’re talking Corvette relative to Challenger and Mustang that should come as no surprise.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Zora is coming and it will be a beast. It will be a magnitude of change above the C8 variants currently on the street. So in a since, there already is a Corvette portfolio bordering on a sub-brand.

• Stingray: base version priced to be accessible to traditional Corvette buyers. It can, however, easily be optioned out of the reach of the average car buyer.
• E-Ray: Wide-body, pushrod based with front e-motor to provide traction for ridiculous acceleration.
• Z06: Wide-body track beast with a sophisticated flat-planed DOHC.
• ZR1: Still yet to come. Most think it will be a wide-body twin-turbo DOHC, basically a boosted Z06. I believe it will save the twin turbos for Zora and instead add a front e-motor to solve the one lingering problem with the Z06. Traction. We’ll see soon enough.
• Zora: Still yet to come. This will be all the goodies wrapped in one package. Wide-body. Flat-planed DOHC, twin-turbos, front e-motor. 1,000 plus hp.

Whether or not a sedan and/or a crossover (think Purosanque) get added to the portfolio is yet to be seen.

This sort of parallels the Challenger portfolio that went from base V6 all the way up to Demon 170 and priced accordingly. Or the Mustang lineup which goes from EcoBoost all thee way up to Darkhorse with each step priced (or overpriced) accordingly. But Corvette has a higher starting point and higher priced top ends. Given that we’re talking Corvette relative to Challenger and Mustang that should come as no surprise.

Yeah but that’s all based off this new design.

My point was to keep the Stingray the Stingray.