1966 Chevrolet Electrovair II 4dr Hardtop

It was a long hiatus, but by the 1960s, GM was looking seriously at electric cars again. Gas cost about 34 cents a gallon, or about $2.00 in today’s terms, but Americans were more concerned about air pollution, according to a GM overview on the Electrovair.

The Electrovair II, a show car unveiled in 1966 seen at right, was an improved version of 1964’s Electrovair I. Both were based on the rear-engine gas-powered Chevrolet Corvair, whose design provided a convenient location for the batteries. The large battery pack went under the hood, while the electric motor drove the wheels from the back of the car.
“The GM electric vehicle concept is based on the belief that an electric car should have performance compatible with modern expressway driving,” press materials for the car said.

The Electrovair II used silver-zinc batteries because, GM said, they delivered high power. (These were the same batteries GM produced for use in intercontinental nuclear missiles, said GM engineer John Berisa.)

The downside was that they were expensive and wore out quickly, as the carmaker admitted at the time. Performance was similar to the gas-powered Corvair, but range was still a problem. The car needed recharging after 40 to 80 miles.

“The objective is to determine what is technically feasible,” GM wrote of its work on cars like the Electrovair, “regardless of whether a project ever will become economically possible.”

The Electrovair II never went to market, and it would still be a long time before a viable electric car would become economically possible for GM.

The battery powered 1966 Electrovair II concept was a test bed for motor and control developments. Its power source was a silver zinc battery pack, in a 532-volt array, located in the front and rear compartments of a 1966 Corvair Monza sport sedan. Silver zinc batteries were used because they delivered high peak power and provided good energy storage but they were costly and were worn out after 100 recharges.

The battery pack was connected to a 115 horsepower AC-Induction motor that produced approximately the same performance as a conventional gasoline powered Corvair, except for its limited range of 40-80 miles before recharging. A tank full of gasoline would propel a Corvair 250-300 miles. Top speed was 80 m.p.h.

Electrovair II’s total weight was approximately 800 lbs. more than a Corvair, even with the comparatively light and compact silver zinc battery pack. If it were propelled by conventional lead acid batteries, the batteries alone would weigh more than 2,600 lbs., approximately the total weight of a standard Corvair.

Some of the touches that set the Electrovair dash apart from the production car are large gages for monitoring volts and amps occupy the space normally reserved for the radio and the in-dash gear selector has no “L” for low.

Sources 1964 GM Electrovair II. GM Brochure

The roof was also interesting in a couple of other ways. First, it gave a glimpse of the quarter window and C-pillar treatment of the 1958 Chevrolet line, much like the Biscayne did a year later. Secondly, the addition of a fastback roof did not alter the Corvair’s interior layout. One would have expected that it would have had a finished-off cargo area, perhaps even equipped with fitted luggage, as was a common practice with sports cars at the time. Instead, the body appeared to have the roof grafted right on to a production Corvette, as there is no storage area behind the seats. The stock trunk area is used with a decklid contoured to the new roofline. The seats had the production fiberglass divider between them, just like a stock Corvette roadster. The area is even body-colored, which actually makes for a very attractive, albeit unusual interior layout for a closed coupe. The remainder of the interior is largely stock, with custom white seat covers and chromed interior C-pillar trim pieces.

Unfortunately for this particular machine, it was the only one of the three that did not reach production in some form. With Corvette sales becoming sluggish during the 1954 model year, it was seen by product planners as too high a gamble. The time for a Corvette fastback eventually did come, though nearly a decade later and on a new-generation machine.

The Chevrolet Corvair is a automobile produced by the Chevrolet division of General Motors from 1959 to 1969, for the 1960–1969 model years. The Corvair was offered in a wide range of body styles, including four-door sedans, two-door coupes, convertibles, and station wagons. In addition, it was built as a compact van similar to the Volkswagen bus, with styles including a pickup, panel van, and a passenger van called the Greenbrier. The cargo floor was raised above the rear engine, and some pickups featured an unusual side-loading ramp.

The Corvair — like the Ford Falcon, Studebaker Lark, Nash Rambler, and the Plymouth Valiant— was one of the first of a new compact class. These were offered in response to the small, sporty and fuel-efficient automobiles being imported from Europe by Volkswagen, Renault and others.

But the Corvair stood out with its significantly different engineering approach from other American offerings. The Corvair was part of GM’s innovative Y-body (”Z”-Body from 1965-on) line of cars, but this was by far the most unusual, due to the location and design of its engine. It was an air-cooled flat / opposed rear-engined vehicle inspired by the Volkswagen Beetle and the Porsche 356. The 1948 Tucker Torpedo had also used this layout to mixed reviews. Most other compacts such as the Chevy II / Nova, and later, the subcompact Vega, were smaller versions of conventional automobiles with in-line water-cooled front-mounted iron 4 or 6 cylinder engines. In contrast, the Corvair’s powerplant was an aluminum, air-cooled 140 in³ (2.3 L) flat-6 engine. The first Chevrolet Corvair engine produced as little as 80 hp (60 kW). Later versions developed as much as 180 hp (134 kW), comparable to V6 engines of the 1980s.

Although the Corvair was initially marketed as an economy sedan, with the development of a coupe, it was offered as a sporty sedan before the Mustang became popular in the compact segment. Its final design evoked the later Camaro, and is considered by many[weasel words] to still look contemporary in the 21st century.

History
Corvair convertible
The Corvair’s innovative flat-6 engine left room for the spare tire, creating even more room in the forward trunk.

The Corvair name originated as a fastback show car in 1954, which, like many Chevrolet concept cars of the period, including the Chevrolet Nomad and Chevrolet Impala, was based on the Corvette. The design was championed by Ed Cole, Chevrolet’s chief engineer in the early 1950s and general manager in the late 1950s, as an answer to the growing popularity of small, lightweight imported cars.

Design began in 1956 under the auspices of Ed Cole; the first vehicles rolled off the assembly line in late 1959 as part of the 1960 model year. For 24 hours, two Corvairs were tested at the Riverside International Raceway in Riverside, California. One car rolled over, but the other completed the drive, only losing a quart (0.946 L) of oil.The Corvair was introduced to the public early in 1960, as actress Shirley Bonne unveiled the first model.

The Corvair represented a major breakthrough in unibody construction for mass-produced Detroit vehicles, the most successful automobile of this type up to that time, with 1,786,243 cars being produced between 1960 and 1969. Among its many other forward-thinking and breakthrough technologies for its day, the Corvair was built from uniform molds and relied on the shaping of the glass and doors for help with structural integrity[4]. Convertible versions needed special supports welded underneath to compensate for the missing shape on the top.

The Corvair enjoyed a ten model year run, and was finally discontinued in May 1969 due to plummeting sales. A variety of factors contributed to the model’s 96-percent drop in sales from 1965 to the last 1969 models. The Corvair faced increasing competition from the Ford Mustang and other “pony cars” — ironically, a market pioneered by the 1960 Corvair Monza. Safety issues were raised, especially by Ralph Nader’s 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed. The car’s design was costly to produce and did not command a premium price on the showroom floor. Engineers experienced difficulties adapting the basic engine design to the tighter emissions standards proposed for 1972. Lastly, a general lack of interest at General Motors, including an almost complete lack of advertising from 1967 onwards (the company’s “by-request-only” 1969 Corvair brochure was a mere four pages long, and the 500 Sport Coupe wasn’t even illustrated) contributed to the model’s demise.

The Corvair was a successful model for Chevrolet, with annual unit sales exceeding 200,000 for many years. Chevrolet deliberately designed the Corvair as a radical departure from the conventional Chevrolet. The rear engine offered enormous packaging and economy advantages, providing the car with a lower silhouette, flattening passenger compartment floor, obviating the need for power assists, reducing the need for air conditioning (due to the absence of engine heat blowing over the passenger compartment), and offering dramatic improvements in ride comfort, traction and braking balance. The radically different design also attracted customers from other makes, primarily imports. This was an important, and often under-emphasized, cause of the Corvair’s success.

Unlike the Falcon and Valiant nameplates, whose conventional designs tended to poach customers from the cheaper but profit-driving full-size models from their respective manufacturers, the Corvair siphoned customers from makes such as Volvo or VW. Because such customers had not been likely to contemplate a larger Chevrolet Biscayne (which cost only slightly more), each Corvair sold did not translate into a Biscayne that was lost. This was in direct contrast to the situation at Ford, where the Falcon nearly ate its maker alive by stealing sales from the basic large Ford sedan. Corvair sales were almost entirely “extra business” for Chevrolet.

Corvair was named Motor Trend magazine’s Car of the Year for 1960.

The early four door 1960 models, the 500 and the 700, were conceived as economy cars offering few amenities in order to keep sticker prices down for Chevrolet customers. Powered by an 80 hp (60 kW) engine and unsynchronized three speed manual or two speed Powerglide automatic transmission, the Corvair was less powerful than other cars in its class; however, the horsepower and torque fit the size of the car rather well. Despite the relatively expensive and unique power train, the car sold for around $1,500 for a base model 500.

Introduced in January 1960, two-door models boasted a fold-down rear seat for added storage capacity, which was greatly needed as the spare tire was stowed in the forward trunk compartment. The passenger compartment was heated by a gasoline heater mounted next to the spare tire in the luggage compartment. While it offered immediate hot air, customers complained of what they thought might be decreased gas milage on cold days and through long winters. Chevrolet redesigned the heating system for the 1961 model year, yet left it up to customers to choose the gas heater until the end of the 1964 model year.

Monza

The line quickly grew from utilitarian bench seat sedans and coupes to the more plushly appointed bucket seat interiors of the 900 line now called Monza. It hit showroom floors in the Spring 1960. Two available options on Monza were a more powerful engine, rated at 95 horsepower (71 kW) thanks to a more radical camshaft paired with low-restriction exhaust, and the introduction of a fully synchronized four speed transmission.

Despite its late introduction, the Monza sold 12,000 units, making it one of the most popular Corvairs.

1961 Chevrolet added an optional four-speed manual transmission (late in 1960, few produced prior to 1961 introduction) to augment the standard three-speed manual and optional two-speed Powerglide automatic. The Corvair engine received its first size increase to 145 in³ courtesy of a slight increase in bore size. The base engine was still rated at 80 hp (60 kW) when paired with the manual transmissions and 84 hp (63 kW) when mated to the optional automatic transmission in Monza models. The high-performance engine was rated at 98 hp (73 kW). To increase luggage capacity in the front the spare tire was relocated to the engine compartment in cars not ordered with All Weather air conditioning and the gasoline heater was replaced by a system of ducts that redirected warmed air from the cylinder heads to the passenger compartment. The gasoline heater remained available as an option through 1964.

Corvair was the first of the compacts to offer factory air conditioning, as a mid 1961 option introduction. The large condenser lay flat atop the horizontal engine fan. A large, green painted reverse rotation version of the standard GM Frigidaire air conditioning compressor was used, and an evaporator housing was added under the dash with integrated outlets surrounding the radio housing. All Weather Air Conditioning was not available on wagons, Greenbrier/Corvair 95, or the turbocharged models introduced later due to space conflicts in those body styles.

A station wagon, the Lakewood, was also added to the lineup in 1961. This was similar in layout to the Volkswagen Squareback also introduced that year which placed a flat engine under the cargo floor. It contained a total of 68 ft³ (1.9 m³) of cargo room — 58 in the main passenger compartment, and another 10 in the “trunk” under the hood.

That same year, Chevrolet also introduced the Corvair 95 line of light-duty truck, which used the Corvair driveline and were forward-control, with the driver sitting over the front wheels, as in the Volkswagen Type 2. The Corvan model was available in myriad configurations as both a panel van and a window van. There were also two models of pickup available. The Loadside was a fairly typical pickup of the era, except for the rear engine, forward controls, and a strange pit in the middle of the bed, The more popular pickup was the Rampside model, which, as its name implies, had a large fold-down ramp on the side of the pickup bed. Rampsides were used by the Bell System because of the ease with which cable reels could be rolled in and out of the bed. Fleet sales of Corvair commercial vehicles were poor due to an approximately $100 premium over competitive Ford products: If you bought 25 trucks, you essentially got one extra Ford for free. This disadvantage would seriously affect Corvair 95 sales, and ultimately cause the line to be discontinued in favor of a basic Chevy II-based panel truck in 1964.

The Greenbrier Sportswagon used the same body as the Corvan with window option, but was marketed as a station wagon like the Lakewood, and was available with trim and paint options similar to the cars, arguably making it the first American minivan.

Continuing from the end of the previous year was the Monza, heavily promoted and sometimes considered “the poor man’s Porsche.” The Monza was expanded to a four-door as well as a two-door coupe and garnered around 144,000 sales.

1962 – 1963
The Corvair’s innovative turbocharged engine

In 1962, Chevrolet introduced the 150 hp (112 kW) turbocharged Monza Spyder option for Monza coupes and convertibles mid year, making the Corvair one of the first two production automobiles to come with a turbocharger as a factory option, with the Oldsmobile F-85 Turbo Jetfire of the same year. The 500 station wagon was dropped in favor of the Monza wagon at introduction, however all station wagons were discontinued mid year to create more capacity for new models like the convertible and Chevy II. Metallic brake linings and a heavy duty suspension consisting of a front anti roll bar, rear axle limit straps, revised spring rates and recalibrated shock absorbers were introduced as optional equipment and recommended for Spyders. Monza Spyder featured a multi-gauge instrument cluster which included a tachometer, cylinder head temperature gauge and intake manifold pressure gauge in addition to the turbocharged high performance engine.

The 1963 model year saw the end of the Loadside pickup, and the availability of a long 3.08 gear for improved fuel economy, but the Corvair otherwise remained largely carryover with minor trim and engineering changes (self adjusting brakes) from 1962.

Significant engineering and safety changes occurred in 1964, while the bodies and models available remained the same.

The lineup remained relatively unchanged for the 1964 model year, with the exception of the engine growing from 145 to 164 in³ (2.3 to 2.7 L) due to an increase in stroke; the base power growing from 80 to 95 hp (60 to 70 kW), and the high performance engine growing from 95 to 110 hp (70 to 80 kW). The Spyder engine remained rated at 150 hp (112 kW) despite the displacement increase of the engine. The Rampside pickup was discontinued at the end of the model year.

1964 also saw a critical improvement in the Corvair’s suspension; the car’s swing axle rear suspension was tamed by use of an additional transverse leaf spring carrying a high proportion of the rear weight in an effort to diminish rear roll stiffness and foster more neutral handling attributes. Spring rates were much softer at both ends of the car in 1964 compared to previous models, and the heavy duty suspension was no longer optional although all models now had an (even larger) front anti roll bar standard. Brakes were mildly improved by finned rear drums.

However, a young lawyer named Ralph Nader had written a book called Unsafe at Any Speed in which the 1960-63 Corvair (accused by Nader of a greater tendency to cause loss of driver control, spin out or even roll over in many situations) was used as a dramatic case study. The Nader book, which was published in 1965, came as a blow to sales of the Corvair line. The sporty, inexpensive Ford Mustang, based on the conventionally designed Ford Falcon and introduced in April 1964 in response to the market pioneered by the Corvair Monza, also hurt Corvair sales.

1966 Chevrolet Corvair

A dramatic redesign of the Corvair body and suspension and two powerful new engines came in 1965. The new body style showed influence from Chevrolet Corvette Stingray and the 1963 Buick Riviera, with ‘coke bottle styling’ that set the trend for GM cars for the next fifteen years- foreshadowing the 1967 Chevrolet Camaro that eventually replaced the Corvair. Many consider the second generation to still look contemporary in contrast to the first generation body. A new fully independent suspension similar to that used on the Corvette replaced the original swing axle rear suspension. Car and Driver magazine’s David E. Davis Jr. showed wild enthusiasm for the 1965 Corvair in their October 1964 issue. For the first time, none of the passenger cars had a “B” pillar, making all closed models true hardtops.

“And it is here too, that we have to go on record and say that the Corvair is – in our opinion – the most important new car of the entire crop of ‘65 models, and the most beautiful car to appear in this country since before World War II.”

“When the pictures of the ‘65 Corvair arrived in our offices, the man who opened the envelope actually let out a great shout of delight and amazement on first seeing the car, and in thirty seconds the whole staff was charging around, each wanting to be the first to show somebody else, each wanting the vicarious kick of hearing that characteristic war-whoop from the first-time viewer.”

“Our ardor had cooled a little by the time we got to drive the cars – then we went nuts all over again. The new rear suspension, the new softer spring rates in front, the bigger brakes, the addition of some more power, all these factors had us driving around like idiots – zooming around the handling loop dragging with each other, standing on the brakes – until we had to reluctantly turn the car over to some other impatient journalist. We were actually annoyed about having to drive the new Sting Ray and the new Impala SS with a great, storming 409 to propel it”

“The ‘65 Corvair is an outstanding car. It doesn’t go fast enough, but we love it.”

Many new options and refinements appeared in the beautiful[7] new 1965 redesign. Fully integrated in-dash All Weather Air Conditioning, a much better heater system, larger brakes borrowed from the Chevelle, a stronger differential ring gear, a Delcotron alternator and significant carburetor and small chassis refinements all occurred. AM/FM radio, FM stereo, telescopically adjustable steering column, and a Special Purpose Chassis Equipment (”Z17″) handling package, consisting of a special performance suspension and quick ratio steering box, were significant new options that became available for 1965.

The previous 150 hp (112 kW) Monza Spyder was replaced by the normally-aspirated 140 hp (104 kW) Corsa and the 180 hp (134 kW) Turbocharged engine. The Corsa came standard with an instrument panel featuring a 140 mph (230 km/h) speedometer with resettable trip odometer, a 6,000 rpm tachometer, cylinder head temperature gauge, analog clock with a sweeping second hand, a manifold vacuum/pressure gauge and fuel gauge. Powerglide automatic transmission was not offered on the Corsa, however the Corsa’s standard 140 hp (100 kW) four-carburetor engine was available for $79 in the 500 and Monza series Corvairs with Powerglide, if so desired by a customer. The standard equipment Corsa 140 hp (104 kW) engine was notable for the fact that the engine used 4 single-throat carburetors, larger valves, and dual exhaust — the factory’s response to a modification hot-rodders had been making since the car first appeared; it was available as an option on other Corvair trim levels. The base 95 hp (71 kW) and 110 hp (82 kW) high performance engines were carried forward from 1964 for the 500 and Monza models.

By this point, the more utilitarian station wagon, panel van, and pickup body styles had all been dropped in favor of the sportier coupe, hardtop sedan and convertible styles. 1965 would be the last year for the Greenbrier window van, which was retained only because of a few fleet orders, with 1528 being built. Chevrolet replaced the Corvair-based vans with the Chevrolet Sportvan/GMC Handi-Van, which used a traditional front engine/rear drive axle borrowed from the Chevy II.

1966 – 1969

The 1966 lineup remained essentially unchanged from 1965, and sales began to decline as a result of Nader’s book, the very popular new Mustang that offered V8s up to 271 hp (202 kW) compared to Corvair’s 180 hp (130 kW) top powertrain, and rumors of the upcoming “Panther’- the code name for the forthcoming 1967 Camaro slated as the replacement for the Corvair in the sporty car market. The sales decline was also accelerated by a decision at GM to discontinue further development of the Corvair. One change of note was a more robust 4 speed synchromesh transmission for 1966, using the standard Saginaw gear set with 3.11:1 first gear ratio used by other GM 6 cylinder vehicles. The new 3 and 4 speed transmission was capable of handling more stress, though generally much more truck-like in operation than the prior 4 speed transmission which was modeled more along the lines of a Warner, but also a Saginaw product. It was a great improvement over the older 3 speed transmission, having a synchronized first gear. Also, the gear ratios were carried over from other GM cars, and were not optimal for a street-driven Corvair. A small flexible plastic air dam (”spoiler”) was installed below the front apron to conceal the front suspension and underbody, and lessen crosswind sensitivity to virtually nil. It is a popular retrofit to the 1965 models both for functional and aesthetic reasons. Corvair fans can easily tell the difference between the 1965 and ‘66 models by the taillights; the ‘66-’69 lenses protrude further from the bezels, and the backup light is less obvious, located inside the inboard lens. In front, the Chevy emblem is painted red on the ’65s; ‘66-’69s are blue. ‘65 models carried “Corvair” script on the right side of the hood; for 1966, the script was moved further down to the “grille” area, just to the left of the right headlight bezel. The Monza emblem featured a thinner vertical bar.
1967 Corvair Monza

In 1967 the Camaro was introduced and the Corvair line was trimmed to the base 500 sedan and coupe, and the Monza sedan, coupe and convertible. The 140 hp (104 kW) and 180 hp (134 kW) engine options were deleted as well, although the 140 hp (100 kW) option would be later reintroduced as a regular production option and would remain available until Corvair production ended. This model year was the first equipped (along with all other domestic GM lines) with true collapsible steering columns, a final response to one of the most valid safety criticisms. GM introduced a 50,000-mile (80,000 km) engine warranty on all 1967 models, including the Corvair. Dual circuit master cylinder with warning light, nylon reinforced brake hoses, stronger steel (instead of aluminum) door hinges and soft contoured instrument panel knobs and a vinyl edged day/night mirror were all made standard equipment as well.

In 1968 the line was trimmed even further by discontinuing the four door hardtop models, leaving just three models; 500 Sport Coupe, and Monza Sport Coupe and Convertible. Sales were down to 15,400. All Weather air conditioning was dropped as an option, due to concerns about thermal loading added by the now-standard air injection reactor (”smog pump”) which probably hurt sales as factory air became more popular generally in automobiles. Additional safety features, including side marker lights, and shoulder belts for closed models, were fitted per the Federal government’s requirements.

According to researchers such as noted GM historian Dave Newell, GM had already planned on ceasing Corvair production after the 1966 model year to make way for the Camaro. But the timing of Nader’s book turned out to be an inconvenience. Not wanting to appear as though they were buckling to Nader’s pressure, GM kept the Corvair in production for another three years. The only developmental changes made were to keep in line with government safety and emissions requirements. Another indication of the Corvair’s imminent demise was when the 1969 models were introduced: GM equipped its 1969 models one year ahead of Government requirements, with a steering column-mounted, anti-theft ignition switch, and a new, square-shaped ignition key. In 1969, Corvairs got the new key but were the only GM cars to retain the ignition switch on the dashboard, no doubt due to the lack of interest by GM engineering to adapt the Corvair steering column accordingly. How those last 1969 Corvairs were assembled (and the press event held by Chevrolet when car number 6000 rolled off the assembly line) is an interesting part of the Corvair story.

1969 Corvairs and Novas were being assembled at the same facility in the Chevrolet/Fisher plant complex in Willow Run, Michigan. However, demand for Novas was high and almost nonexistent for Corvairs, so a decision was made in November, 1968, to move Corvair assembly to a special area in the plant, dubbed the “Corvair Room,” making Corvairs built between that time and May 14, 1969 essentially hand-built (once the bodies were delivered from Fisher Body). A number of well-known Chevy collectors and GM executives expressed interest in purchasing the last Corvair, number 6000, but GM management decided that the Olympic Gold Monza hardtop would not be sold. Most accounts relate that GM scrapped it shortly after it was built. Representatives from the press, along with corporate bigwigs, were present at the small ceremony when car number 6000 got its final fittings and drove off the line to where railroad cars full of new ‘69 Novas were ready to be shipped to dealers. Reaction to the death of this sporty car was mixed, and extended to both ends of the spectrum, from sadness and regret that such a fine car couldn’t make it in the marketplace, to sharp criticism of Chevrolet’s decision to continue building the car at all. It should be noted that GM’s policy has always been to forbid non-employees from visiting their assembly plants, and certainly, photographing the area. It was the Corvair that again, proved to be the exception.

General Motors did have plans for a 1970-on model Corvair, essentially a re-skin of the 1965-69 body with new exterior sheetmetal. The car likely would have debuted as a “1970 1/2″ model, much as Corvette and Camaro did for 1970. The overall appearance of this third generation Corvair was very similar to the 1973 GM A Body intermediates– particularly the 1973 Pontiac Grand Am. It retained Corvair proportions, with a rounded sweeping body, terminating in a tapered tail with a glassy roof, featuring fixed quarter windows. This program progressed past the point of full scale clay models before being dropped in early 1968. One interesting project at GM was the Turbo Hydramatic 350 transmission, introduced in the 1968 Camaro and later adopted by most Chevrolet models. It was laid out in a manner that would permit its use in the Corvair, unlike the Turbo Hydramatic 400 and most other designs. Had the 1970-on Corvair been built, it is clear this transmission would have been adapted for the Corvair. The last word on the 1970+ “third generation” Corvair was, “Mr. Cole (GM President Ed Cole, ex-Chevrolet General Manager during Corvair development) is not enthused about this program…”

In what may be the automotive industry’s greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Nader’s consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the car’s design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Nader’s evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing the Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking.

Engineering
This article or section is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. To meet Wikipedia’s quality standards and conform with our Neutral Point of View policy, this article or section may require cleanup. The talk page may have more details. Editing help is available. (December 2007)

The Chevrolet Corvair engine, unique for an American car, presented a different set of requirements for mechanics, many of whom treated the engine in the same way as they would an engine of normal design, leading to problems.

An engineering weakness not generally highlighted related to fumes and gases entering the passenger area via the heater system, a problem endemic to an air-cooled engine that uses heat radiated from the engine directly to heat air for the passenger compartment. Carbon monoxide and other noxious or deadly gases could enter the passenger areas if exhaust system gaskets aged or failed using this system, since the gaskets were inside the heater box air intakes and air for engine cooling was used for passenger–compartment heating when the heater was on (or leaking). The 1960 model Corvairs used a GM Harrison division gasoline heater located in the front trunk area as its standard heater, similar to the Eberspächer heater offered as an auxiliary heater by Volkswagen as a dealer-installed option. This feature became optional in 1961 and was dropped in 1965 due to weak consumer demand.

Chronic oil leakage from the pushrod tubes, caused by GM’s poor choice of pushrod tube seal material, also contaminated the passenger heating air. That air might also become noxious if a 6-inch (152 mm) wide rubber seal almost 16 feet (5 m) long, located between the engine assembly and the body, was not maintained in like-new condition. Another common problem in the earlier years was oil leakage caused by dissimilar metal thermal expansion on the aluminum–and–steel engine. Chevrolet wrestled with several problems of this nature the entire time the Corvair was in production with varying degrees of success. Sandwiching cast iron cylinders between an aluminium case and alloy heads is highly magnified by putting another cylinder on each bank.

The interior air would also be contaminated if the voltage regulator allowed an over-voltage condition and the original battery vent hoses were not attached. The battery, which was mounted in the engine compartment, could emit hydrogen if overcharged. Chevrolet installed special battery caps and hoses that vented the battery to air outside the engine compartment, but these were often discarded by owners during the car’s life.

The Volkswagen Beetle (Type I), another automobile with an air cooled engine, had a heater system which better isolated fresh air from engine cooling air fumes, and was only susceptible to carbon monoxide contamination from the two heat exchanger to muffler seals at the rear of the engine, as opposed to the eight exhaust joints in the Corvair system. This air contamination problem is illustrated by the fact that many American cities’ taxi regulations had prohibited air-cooled engine cars from being used as taxicabs when they derived their heated air from engine exhaust heat, decades before the Corvair and VW Beetle entered the market.

Another problem that the Corvair did not share with Type I Beetles was the fan on top of the engine. The fan and generator were operated by a belt on the rear of the crankshaft. It had to turn around two ninety degree pulleys (each twisting it sideways) to get to the fan pulley, and was described, at the time, as the worlds longest belt.

A criticism in Lawyer Ralph Nader’s 1965 book concerned the steering column design. Like most cars of its era, the Corvair’s steering column was rigid and could impale the driver in a front-end collision. While the Corvair’s steering box was mounted ahead of the front cross-member, it was well behind the frame horns, in what would later be called a “crumple zone,” and could, in a severe front-end collision, push the steering column and steering wheel toward the driver. In practice, most driver chest injuries were sustained due to the lack of a shoulder belt, rather than steering column intrusion. Any increase in risk of injury due to steering column intrusion in a front-end collision was, however, more than offset by the absence of an incompressible engine and transmission in the front of the vehicle, which commonly intruded into passenger compartments on vehicles of the era. Chevrolet, aware of Nader’s criticism, changed the steering shaft to a two-part design with a frangible joint late in the 1965 model year, and a collapsible steering column was provided in 1967, towards the end of the model’s life span.

The criticism of the 1960-’63 Corvair handling was not entirely groundless. Although it was a competent handling vehicle as delivered from the factory, with characteristics quite similar to many imported cars, such as Mercedes and Volkswagen, which also used swing axle suspensions with similar handling attributes, there was room for improvement. Advertising in 1960 from domestic competitors showing the results of shooting an arrow weighted at the rear end missing its target widely did little to foster confidence in many minds about the stability of the car.

Chevrolet had tailored the handling of the Corvair by using very wide tires for such a light car (6.50-13, considered wide at the time, even contemporary Corvette used only a 6.70) to bear the weight of the rear and reduced front pressures by about 11 psi to increase front slip angles to balance traction and maintain confident control. If this pressure difference was not maintained, the handling could become dangerous. In very hard cornering, the rear slip angles would exceed the front slip angles, and could lead to oversteer at high speeds.

Swing axles were a common suspension design during the Corvair era. The advantages of swing axles are numerous, good handling not being one of them ; very compact packaging, tremendous strength and durability on rough surfaces, very good isolation of road harshness and a very smooth ride due to the camber changes forcing the tire carcass to absorb blows sideways as well as radially on severe bumps.

The primary deficiency of swing axle suspensions is they create a high “roll center;” the theoretical point that the cars center of mass pivots around- as it leans in cornering. A high roll center increases body roll in cornering; however, it reduces sensitivity to uneven roads and crosswinds. Having a high “roll center” transfers a large amount of weight to the outboard tire during cornering. Pre-1965 Corvair has a rear roll center approximately 13″ above the road surface and front roll center just slightly below the road surface. This concentration of roll loading on the rear wheels means that as the cornering force increased, the weight was transferred to the already heavily loaded rear tire. The cornering force combined with the already heavily loaded rear tires (from the weight of the engine) increased its slip angle, and could eventually pushing the car into lift-off oversteer

Chevrolet had considered adding a front anti-roll bar for the original 1960 car, which would have shifted a significant part of this weight transfer to the front outboard tire and reduced the rear slip angles considerably in severe cornering. Unfortunately, GM decided that the extra cost ($6 per car is often cited), with the confidence in tire pressures adequately compensating for the inclination for oversteer- led GM to delete the front anti–roll bar from production models (GM used different low front and high rear tire pressures to combat the oversteer). This decision would come back to haunt GM later. The anti–roll bar did become available as an option in 1962, and was made standard finally in 1964. The 1964 rear suspension was modified considerably with a transverse leaf spring carrying much of the rear weight and vastly softer coil springs. The redesigned 1965 suspension was a total solution, cutting the rear roll center down to half its previous height, using fully articulated half-axles that offered constant camber on the rear tires in all driving situations. Although much is said about ‘jacking’ (tendency for swing axle suspensions to go into very severe positive camber in extreme corners), the bias ply tires used at the time were very insensitive to camber and did not have severely reduce cornering grip (unlike radial tires which later became commonplace). Due to the swing axle design, the rear tires would undergo large camber changes during fast cornering, and the improvements in 1965 only improved this design element.

Contemporary Mercedes W120 Ponton sedans along with rear-engined Volkswagens, Renaults, Porsches and other cars used swing axles, with mixed results. As Corvair was designed to avoid terminal oversteer by using very low air pressure in the front tires, typically 15 to 19 pounds-force (85 N) per square inch, so that they would begin to understeer (increase slip angles faster than the rear) before the swing axle oversteer would come into play, this pressure was quite adequate for the very lightweight Corvair front end on the already quite wide tire. Owners and mechanics, either through ignorance of the necessity for this pressure differential between front and rear or thinking that the pressure was too low for the front, would frequently inflate the front tires to current “average” pressures. It should be mentioned that the Corvair is by no means unique in requiring dissimilar front and rear tire pressures for normal controllability; even the front–wheel–drive Cadillac Eldorado years later used very low rear pressures (16 psi) to balance handling. This may seem contrary to many ideas about a tires contact patch, but it’s important to remember how tires of different materials and sizes will be affected in dissimilar ways.

Wheel camber change on the early models created a “tuck under” and “air out” condition in one or both of the rear tires during hard cornering. According to Nader, a son of a member of the GM Board of Directors died in an early Corvair as a result of this characteristic. In this regard, Nader’s book, along with On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors by John Z. DeLorean and J. Patrick Wright, was highly critical of Ed Cole’s obsession with building and marketing a rear-engined, air-cooled car to sell at a low price.

Although Nader arguably overstated the severity of these handling problems, as was later claimed by U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigators, DeLorean ultimately backed Nader’s findings in his book. Whatever the reason, Chevrolet did make changes to the suspension for 1964 models. GM added as standard what had previously been an option, namely, a transverse leaf spring extending between the rear wheels, to limit rear wheel camber change.

In 1965 the Corvair got a state–of–the–art fully independent rear suspension closely resembling that of the contemporary Corvette, and even sharing some components. Motor Trend referred to the 1965 model as “the first American production automobile on the road with fully-independent rear suspension, (the Corvette considered limited production).” These changes were, however, viewed by critics as an admission by Chevrolet of problems with the original design.

Combining dramatic design and exciting performance, the Chevrolet Camaro Concept recaptures the spirit of one of the most popular sport coupes of all time and redefines the Camaro for new generations of fans.

The Camaro Concept embodies the performance and passion that have made first-generation Camaros some of the most sought-after collector cars, updating the formula with a fuel-efficient powertrain, sophisticated chassis and contemporary design execution. The goal is to make the sport coupe relevant to younger enthusiasts while retaining its appeal to its current fans.

“Millions of people of all ages fell in love with the Camaro for all of the right reasons,” said Ed Welburn, GM vice president, global design. “Camaros were beautiful to look at and offered performance that could rival expensive European GTs. Yet they were practical enough to drive every day and priced within the reach of many new car buyers.”

Though only a show car at this point, the Camaro Concept is intended to explore customer reaction to design and engineering elements that might lead to an all-new version of the Camaro.
The long hood, short deck and wide stance of the Camaro Concept leave no doubt that it is a serious performance car. Those looks are backed up by a 400-horsepower aluminum small-bock V-8, a six-speed manual transmission, and a sophisticated chassis with four-wheel independent suspension.

Like its forebears, the Camaro Concept would be practical enough for everyday use. It features fuel-saving features like Active Fuel Management™ cylinder deactivation technology, yielding highway fuel economy of 30 mpg or better. Its overall size is a comfortable fit for city streets and suburban parking lots, and its back seat provides occasional seating for two adults.

Lean, Muscular Design

Because of Camaro’s powerful heritage, the GM Design team chose a theme that pays homage to the original Camaro, while being instantly recognizable as an all-new car.

Said Bob Boniface, director of the Warren Advanced Design Studio, “The fact that the Camaro has been out of production for a number of years made it particularly important that the Camaro Concept honors the Camaro heritage in the right way.”

The 1969 Camaro, considered by many to be the best first-generation design, was a significant inspiration. But as GM design teams in Warren, Mich., worked on alternatives for the Camaro Concept, they also turned to the latest Corvette and to aircraft like the YF-22, seeking a design that encompasses the spirit that made the 1969 Camaro great, but interprets that spirit in a fresh, exciting way.

“The overall proportions, long hood and powerful fender forms say, ‘This is a front-engine, rear-wheel drive performance vehicle,’ ” said Tom Peters, design director, rear-wheel drive performance cars. The prominent front grille and hood bulge hint at the power of the Corvette-inspired V-8 engine. Large wheels and tires, exposed high-performance brakes and prominent fender shapes signal that the Camaro Concept has the handling and braking to go with the powertrain.

The cockpit of the Camaro nestles between sharply defined fender forms, a design element inspired by fighter planes and the new Corvette. And like any high-performance vehicle, the clean, purposeful design is integral to the aesthetic. “The Camaro Concept isn’t just a styled shape,” said Peters. “The design incorporates what the vehicle needs to perform to its optimum level.”

The same purposeful design is reflected in the interior of the Camaro Concept. The gauges and splash of orange trim hint at classic first-generation Camaros, but the overall design and execution reflect the no-nonsense functionality that drivers expect from a high-performance Chevrolet sports car.

Performance for the real world.

The Camaro Concept features the latest generation of GM’s legendary small-block V-8. The 6.0-liter LS2 engine features an aluminum block and heads for light weight, and Active Fuel Management™, which shuts off four cylinders to save fuel when the engine is lightly loaded. This concept version of the LS2 is rated at 400 horsepower, yet it could also deliver more than 30 mpg at highway speeds.

The Camaro Concept’s six-speed manual transmission provides a wide spread of ratios for aggressive acceleration off the line, confident passing and merging and efficient highway cruising.

Modern sports cars are about more than just straight-line speed, so the Camaro Concept features a sophisticated rear-wheel drive chassis. Its independent front and rear suspension features progressive-rate springs and gas-pressurized dampers. Four-wheel vented disc brakes with 14-inch rotors provide confident stopping under all conditions.

Enhancing both the performance and appearance of the Camaro Concept are unique five-spoke cast alloy wheels, 21 inches in the front and 22 inches in the rear.

CHEVY CAMARO RELATED ARTICLES, REVIEWS AND SITES: Includes manufacturer websites, clubs and enthusiast sites, vehicle articles and reviews with pricing and specifications and more:

* Chevy Camaro Official Website
* Chevy Camaro Preview – at Chevy Performance
* Cardomain Chevy Camaro Page- Enthusiast page for Chevy Camaro owners
* Chevy Camaro – website dedicated to Chevy Camaro owners and enthusiasts
* 2007 Chevy Camaro Concept – article at Popular Mechanics
* 2009 Chevy Camaro Photos – at Automobile Mag
* Camaro Z28 – Full throttle internet for Camaro owners
* 2008 Chevy Camaro Wallpapers and Photos -at Autowallpapers.com
* Chevy Camaro History – at Wikipedia

CHEVY CAMARO FORUMS AND MESSAGE BOARDS

* Camaro Forums – Chevy Camaro Enthusiast Forum and Messageboard
* Camaros.net – Team Camaro website
* Camaro Source – Canadian Camaro website

CHEVY CAMARO PARTS AND ACCESSORY GUIDE

* Chevy Camaro Body Kits

The Chevrolet Camaro was introduced in North America by the Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors at the start of the 1967 model year as competition for the Ford Mustang. Although it was technically a compact car (by the standards of the time), the Camaro, like the entire class of Mustang competitors, was soon known as a pony car. It may also be classified as an intermediate touring car, a sports car, or a muscle car. The car shared the same General Motors “F-Body” platform and major components with the Pontiac Firebird, also introduced in 1967. Production of both cars ceased in 2002.

Though the car’s name was contrived with no meaning, GM researchers reportedly found the word in a French dictionary as a slang term for “friend” or “companion.” Ford Motor Company researchers discovered other definitions, including “a shrimp-like creature” and an arcane term for “loose bowels.” In some automotive periodicals before official release, it was code-named “Panther.” Historical examples exist of Chevrolet product managers being asked by the automotive press “what is a Camaro?”, with the tongue-in-cheek answer being “a small, vicious animal that eats Mustangs,” a sideways reference to the competing Ford Mustang.

While the Camaro was never the flagship for Chevrolet, it was for many years one of its most popular models. If its frequent inclusion in automotive enthusiast magazines is any indication, the Chevy Camaro is one of the most popular cars for modification in automotive history.

Four distinct generations of the car were produced.

Ever since the Chevrolet Camaro coupe concept broke cover to become the star of last year’s Detroit show, interested observers have been wondering when a convertible would follow. Just as the current-generation Ford Mustang spawned a ragtop, it was simply inconceivable that Chevy wouldn’t do thesame for the Camaro, even though the coupe is still a “concept.” The convertible is also a neat way of keeping the Camaro buzz alive in advance of the coupe’s 2009 production debut. The convertible will hit showrooms late in ‘09.

Like the coupe concept, this convertible is very close to the production version. Visually, the convertible makes a much bigger splash than the coupe. That’s partly due to the retro hugger orange pearl paint job and gunmetal gray racing stripes. Tom Peters, General Motors’ director ofexterior design for rear-wheel-drive and performance vehicles, says the idea was to create a more striking package: “We opted to go with bright metal accents, as opposed to satin finish, for things like the exhaust tips and fuel filler, and even the rear lights have a polished look. The wheels are different, too. We wanted to do an update of the redline tires from the 1960s, but instead of the red line going around the tire, it’s actually onthe wheels.”

Peters says the surface changes to the convertible’s body are centered around the rear fenders and the trunk lid. Unlike a pure concept, where designers can do as they please, the convertible has been engineered dimensionally to accept a roof folding into the trunk, hence Peters’insistence that the real thing will look pretty much like the concept. He does allow, though, that the windshield will need to be taller on the production convertible.

The concept’s rear seats have been moved inboard, too, in order to accommodate the extra folding-roof hardware. That said, the Camaro concept doesn’t yet pack a lid. Interestingly, Peters won’t entirely rule out the notion of a folding hardtop. Although it’s unlikely, since the extra cost involved would make the Camaro less competitive against its Ford Mustang rival, Chevy could conceivably offer either a ragtop or a folding hard top, as do Mazda (MX-5)and Chrysler (Sebring).

The Chevrolet Volt is a plug-in series-hybrid electric vehicle by General Motors, with production expected to begin in 2010. The Chevy Volt will be built at the Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly in Detroit, Michigan. The company has avoided the use of the term “hybrid,” preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a “range extender” due to its design. The vehicle is designed to run purely on electricity from on-board batteries for up to 40 miles (64 km), or about half the range of GM’s first electric car, the EV1 — a large enough distance to cover the daily commutes of 75% of Americans, which averages around 33 miles (53 km). With use of a small internal combustion engine driving a generator to resupply the batteries, the vehicle’s range is potentially increased to 360 miles (579 km) on the highway. Early estimates, from GM staff, were of initial annual production of 60,000 units, but these claims have been scaled back to a planned 10,000 units, as of May 2008, with a ramp up to 60,000 units in the second year.The Volt concept vehicle was officially unveiled at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) on January 7, 2007 in Detroit, Michigan. An updated version was unveiled at the Shanghai Auto Show in April 2007 in Shanghai, China.

GM faces competition from Nissan Motors, which announced their own electric cars on May 13, 2008, Toyota, Mitsubishi Motors, as well as a number of startup auto manufacturers, some backed by Silicon Valley angel financing.

E-Flex drivetrain

The 2007 Chevrolet Volt concept vehicle that appeared in the North American International Auto Show introduced the E-Flex[18] drive system, which is an attempt to standardize many components of possible future electrically-propelled vehicles, and to allow multiple interchangeable electricity-generating systems. The initial design as envisioned in the Volt combines an electric motor and 16 kWh (58 MJ) lithium-ion battery plug-in system with a small engine (1 liter) powered by gasoline linked to a 53 kW (71 hp) generator. The vehicle is propelled by an electric motor with a peak output of 120 kW (160 hp). Ordinarily, the vehicle would be charged while at home overnight (plug-in hybrid). The vehicle has two charging ports for convenience, one on each side. A full charge reportedly takes 10 hours from a standard North American 120 V, 15 A household outlet. A half charge reportedly takes 50 minutes.

Since the electrical drivetrain is not affected by the method used to charge its batteries, several options could be available for an engine. The newly released primary configuration specified by GM executives uses a non-turbocharged 1.4-liter engine with four cylinders. It is a heavier engine but is cheaper to produce than the previously announced turbocharged 1.0-liter three cylinder version. It would be a flex-fuel engine capable of running gasoline or E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). Fuel would be supplied from a “saddle” tank 45 litres (12 US gal) in size.

The second option is the Volt fuel cell vehicle, which appeared in the 2007 Shanghai Auto Show. Due to the high cost of fuel cells compared to newer lower-cost lithium batteries, General Motors has publicly suggested that the Volt will not be using fuel cells in any near term production vehicles.

Other options have also been mentioned, such as a pure ethanol (E100) engine, and a diesel engine capable of running biodiesel fuel. This general layout is considered a plug-in series hybrid design since mechanical power initially drives the generator, which in turn charges the battery pack. Power is then drained from the batteries to run the electrical motors which move the vehicle. The internal combustion engine does not have any mechanical linkage to the wheels (unlike current vehicles such as the Toyota Prius), and can run at a constant speed for both optimal efficiency and mechanical simplicity (i.e., there is no need for a multi- or variable-cam design). The Volt is expected to get 50 mpg (US) (4.7 L/100 km) if the battery is discharged, or 150 mpg (US) (1.6 L/100 km) if fully charged every 60 mi (97 km).

GM plans to keep the lithium-ion battery in a state-of-charge (SOC) range of between 30% and 80%, with the on-board generator starting to recharge the battery at the 30% level.

GM has decided on a new descriptive terminology distinct from calling it a hybrid. They are calling the Volt an E-REV, for “extended-range electric vehicle.”[24] This is in part justified since there is no mechanical linkage between the petrol engine and the wheels. The design is conceptually similar to a modern electromotive locomotive, with a generator, an electric motor, regenerative braking, with the addition of a storage battery.

Related and Similar Vehicles

The concept vehicle has four doors with a rear liftgate, and it is capable of carrying four to five passengers. This is a significant change in design philosophy when compared to the General Motors’ EV1 of the 1990s, which only seated two. The top speed has also been increased on the Volt, from 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) to 120 miles per hour (190 km/h). The battery pack size has also been reduced between the two, from about 300 L in volume in the EV1, to just 100 L in the Volt. The weight of the battery pack in the Volt will also be significantly less, primarily because the Volt will use lithium-ion batteries while the EV1 used heavier lead-acid and nickel metal hydride batteries.

The purely electric range of the Volt will be considerably smaller than that of the EV1, but the overall range will be much higher. However, there was a 1998 prototype version EV1 in series hybrid configuration, that also had four seats and the same all-electric range of 40 miles (60 km) as the Volt, and it featured combined range of 390 miles (630 km), though with a different engine engagement control program. In contrast to the current Volt, this car was actually a running prototype. The turbine could run on many fuels, from gasoline to compressed natural gas.

The Opel Flextreme concept vehicle is based on the same platform and technology, but designed for the European market; it has a diesel engine and a hatchback body.

Design and Production

This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.

In July 2007, General Motors said that it would have the Volt on the market in 2010. In August 2008, General Motors said it will have Chevy Volt in Europe in 2011.

Design

GM executives report that battery technology will have a large impact in determining the success of the car.
To help spur battery research, GM selected two companies to provide advanced lithium-ion batterypacks: Compact Power, which uses manganese oxide based cells made by its parent company, LG Chemical, and Continental Automotive Systems, which uses nanophosphate based cylindrical cells made by A123Systems. However, on August 9, 2007, GM established a more close-knit relationship with A123Systems so that the two companies could co-develop a Volt-specific battery cell.

This cell was later unveiled at the EVS23 industry convention in Anaheim, CA. Work with CPI has continued at a rapid pace, and in late 2007 CPI delivered two fully-functional prototype battery packs to GM’s testing facilities. On January 31, 2008, A123 and Continental delivered their first prototype to GM’s European test facilities. GM will likely use both suppliers for the Volt, although this remains a matter of speculation.

GM expects ten years of life out of the batteries. As of early 2008, they had started extensive battery testing and planned to have 10-year battery results in two years. Batteries were placed in Chevrolet Malibus for further real-world testing.

In February 2008, Andrew Farah, the car’s chief engineer, said that design and production was ten weeks behind the original schedule, and that further slippage would mean that the 2010 deadline could not be met.

In April 2008, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said that the first battery test mule was now running with a lithium battery pack.

In July 2008, GM confirmed that a non-turbocharged, 1.4 liter 4-cylinder engine will be used as the range extender, and that the intention is to build it in Flint Michigan.

In August 2008, Andrew Farah, the car’s chief engineer, said that the 10 week delay mentioned in February had been “erased” as work on mechanical parts took place during that time. Farah further states the project remains on-track to hit the 2010 deadline saying “at this point, there’s nothing standing in our way of continuing to do what we said we’re going to do.”

Production and Sales

In early June 2008, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said in a press release that “The Chevy Volt is a go” and that production has been approved, with a target of getting the Volt into showrooms by the end of 2010.

In a response to the NHTSA, GM indicated that “GM’s game-changing EREV technology should be treated as a low-volume application … during the 2011-2015 timeframe.” The initial production run for first year of sales of the Volt is most likely 10,000 vehicles.

In September 2007, following the conclusion of the 2007 UAW-GM contract talks, assembly of the Volt was assigned to Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly.

The company has launched a new media Web site for the Volt, including the first “teaser” photos of the production vehicle: a close-up of the rear-end badging and a close-up of the left front end. The photos mainly reveal that the headlights will be less squinty than on the concept vehicle, the air intakes on the grill and near the fog and turn lights have been eliminated, and the “Volt” badge will have a lightning bolt through its “V.” The wheels also appear smaller than on the concept vehicle, and the leading edge of the front door appears to be much closer to the front tire.

Price

At the time of unveiling, the Volt project had been in existence for less than a year. The Volt was targeted to cost around US$30,000. As of April 2008, General Motors Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Robert Lutz was quoted as saying that the realistic unsubsidised price had risen to US$48,000, that he reckoned that US$40,000 might be possible, without making any profit, and that only government tax incentives could take the price tag nearer to US$30,000. When asked directly about the price later, Lutz indicated that this was a misquote – and said “The answer is that we don’t know.” As of August 2008, General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner was quoted saying that the price of the Volt would likely be in “the mid to high 30’s”, suggesting a price of more than US$5,000 more than originally targeted.

The Corvette variant now officially known as the ZR1 was first reported by several print and online publications who were speculating that Chevrolet was developing a super high performance production version of the Corvette and were internally calling it “Blue Devil” (named after GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s alma mater, Duke University). Wagoner is quoted as saying, “I wonder what they can do for 100,000 dollars?” during a GM board meeting speaking about Chevrolet designers. The production version is expected to debut at the 2008 North American International Auto Show and be available as a 2009 model.

The ZR1 was formally announced in a December 2007 press statement by General Motors, where it was revealed that their target of 100 horsepower/liter has been reached by a new “LS9″ engine, an Eaton-supercharged 6.2-liter engine producing a confirmed 638 hp (476 kW) and 604 foot-pounds force (819 N·m) of torque with a sticker price of about US $100,000. The engine is the most powerful engine to be put in an American production sports car.[9] Top speed is 205 mph (330 km/h) Along with an improved motor, the ZR1 also comes with extensive carbon-fiber body parts, including (but not limited to) wider fenders, the hood, roof panel, roof bow, front fascia splitter and rocker moldings. However, the car is heavier and more front weight biased than the Z06 because of the supercharger, with a weight distribution of 52% at the front and 48% at the rear. Tires were also increased in diameter and width, along with bigger and stronger brakes, adjustable suspension, and optional chrome wheels and a premium interior package.

Spy photos from recent hot laps at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, following the 2007 American Le Mans Series final race, show the ZR1 to have carbon-ceramic brakes, extensive carbon fiber (front quarterpanels, A- and B- pillars, as well as the roof and possibly other body panels), and a full-width rear lip spoiler.

The 2009 Corvette ZR1 is an American supercar that brings the technology and engineering refinement of carbon-fiber, ceramics and electronics together in a distinctive design.

“Chevrolet’s goal with the new ZR1 is to show what an American supercar can deliver, at a price that trumps exotics that cost two, three or four times as much – and does so with exceptional driveability,” said Ed Peper, Chevrolet general manager.

The ZR1’s basic stats:

* All-new LS9 supercharged 6.2L V-8 rated at 638 horsepower (476 kW), and approximately 604 lb.-ft. of torque (819 Nm)
* Six-speed, close-ratio, race-hardened manual transmission
* New, high-capacity dual-disc clutch
* Higher-capacity and specific-diameter axle half-shafts; enhanced torque tube
* Specific suspension tuning provides more than 1g cornering grip
* Twenty-spoke 19-inch front and 20-inch rear wheels
* Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires – P285/30ZR19 in front and P335/25ZR20 in the rear – developed specifically for the ZR1
* Standard Brembo carbon-ceramic, drilled disc brake rotors – 15.5-inch-diameter (394-mm) in the front and 15-inch-diameter (380-mm) in the rear
* Larger, blue-painted brake calipers with substantially increased pad area
* Standard Magnetic Selective Ride Control with track-level suspension
* Wider, carbon-fiber front fenders with ZR1-specific dual ports
* Carbon-fiber hood with a raised, polycarbonate window – offering a view of the intercooler below it
* Carbon-fiber roof panel, roof bow, front fascia splitter and rocker moldings with clear-coated, visible carbon-fiber weave
* ZR1-specific full-width rear spoiler with raised outboard sections
* Specific gauge cluster with boost gauge (also displayed on the head-up display) and 220-mph (370 km/h) speedometer readout
* Only two options: chrome wheels and a “luxury” package
* Curb weight of 3,324 pounds (1,508 kg)

The specialized components of the new ZR1 work harmoniously to deliver the most powerful and fastest automobile ever produced by General Motors.

“Preliminary testing shows the ZR1 builds on the highly respected Corvette Z06 in every performance category, from acceleration and braking to cornering grip and top speed,” said Peper. “It all boils down to the power-to-weight ratio and the ZR1’s is exceptional – better than the Porsche 911 GT2, the Ferrari 599 and even the Lamborghini LP640. In fact, the ZR1 is expected to be the first production Corvette to achieve a top speed of at least 200 mph.”

The ZR1 does more than reach 200 mph; it keeps going to a top speed of 205 mph (330 km/h).

Supercharged LS9 Engine

The new LS9 6.2L small-block engine is the power plant the supports the ZR1’s performance capability. The enabler of the LS9’s performance and refinement is a large, positive-displacement Roots-type supercharger with a new, four-lobe rotor design. It is augmented with an integrated charge cooling system that reduces inlet air temperature for maximum performance.

A sixth-generation supercharger helps the LS9 make big power and torque at lower rpm and carries it in a wide arc to 6,600 rpm, as it pushes enough air to help the engine maintain power through the upper levels of the rpm band – the area where supercharged performance tends to diminish. Heavy-duty and lightweight reciprocating components enable the engine’s confident high-rpm performance.

The LS9 is hand-assembled at GM’s Performance Build Center, in Wixom, Mich., and incorporates specialty processes typically seen in racing engines to produce a highly refined and precise product. For example, cast iron cylinder liners are inserted in the aluminum block and are finish-bored and honed with a deck plate installed. The deck plate simulates the pressure and minute dimensional variances applied to the block when the cylinder heads are installed, ensuring a higher degree of accuracy that promotes maximum cylinder head sealing, piston ring fit and overall engine performance.

Transmission and Axle

The LS9 engine is backed by an upgraded, stronger six-speed manual transmission and a twin-disc clutch that provide exceptional clamping power, while maintaining an easy clutch pedal effort. ZR1-specific gearing in the transmission provides a steep first-gear ratio that helps launch the car, and top speed is achieved in sixth gear – a change from the fifth-gear top-speed run-outs in the manual-transmission Corvette and Corvette Z06.

As the term implies, the twin-disc clutch system employs a pair of discs, which spreads out the engine’s torque load over a wider area. This enables tremendous clamping power when the clutch is engaged, while also helping to dissipate heat better and extend the life of the clutch.

The twin-disc clutch system also contributes to the ZR1’s exceptional driving quality, with smooth and easy shifting. The twin-disc system’s design allows higher torque capacity with inertia and pedal effort similar to the Corvette Z06. It enables a 25-percent reduction in inertia, thanks to smaller, 260-mm plates; the Corvette Z06’s uses a 290-mm single-disc system.

The rear axle also is stronger in the ZR1 and features asymmetrical axle-shaft diameters that were developed after careful testing to provide optimal torque management. The axles are also mounted on a more horizontal plane that correlates with the wider width of the rear wheels and tires.

Ride and Handling

The ZR1 is built on the same aluminum-intensive chassis as the Corvette Z06 and features similar independent SLA front and rear suspensions, with aluminum upper and lower control arms. Where the ZR1 differs is the suspension tuning, which was optimized for the car’s steamroller-wide front and rear tires.

Magnetic Selective Ride Control is standard and tuned specifically for the ZR1. The system’s ability to deliver a compliant ride with nearly instantaneous damping adjustments enabled engineers to develop a surprisingly supple ride quality in a supercar that still delivers cornering grip of more than 1g.

From a high-performance perspective, Magnetic Selective Ride Control helps the rear axle remain planted during launch for smooth, hop-free acceleration. It also helps suppress axle movement when cornering on broken or uneven pavement.

Brakes, Wheels and Tires

Commensurate with the ZR1’s engine output is the braking system, which is headlined by Brembo carbon-ceramic brake rotors. Found on only a few exotics and more expensive supercars, carbon-ceramic brake rotors are made of a carbon-fiber-reinforced ceramic silicon carbide material . Their advantage comes in low mass and resistance to wear and heat. In fact, the rotors should never show any corrosion or require replacement for the life of the vehicle, when used in normal driving.

The vented and cross-drilled rotors on the ZR1 measure 15.5 inches (394 mm) in diameter in the front and 15 inches (380 mm) in diameter in the rear – making them among the largest carbon-ceramic rotors available on any production vehicle.

Clamping down on the high-tech rotors are six-piston front calipers and four-piston rear calipers, each painted a ZR1-exclusive blue. The front pads are equivalent in size to the largest on any production car with a single-pad design – double that of the Corvette Z06’s 70-sq.-cm. front pads.

The brakes are visible through the ZR1’s exclusive wheels: 20-spoke alloy rims that measure 19 inches in diameter in the front and 20 inches in the rear. They come standard with a bright, Sterling Silver paint finish and chrome versions are optional. The wheels are wrapped in Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires developed specifically for the ZR1, measuring P285/30ZR19 in front and P335/25ZR20 in the rear.

Exclusive Exterior

The ZR1 is instantly recognizable, with perhaps the most identifiable feature a raised, all-carbon-fiber hood that incorporates a clear, polycarbonate window. The window provides a view of the top of the engine’s intercooler, with the legend “LS9 SUPERCHARGED” embossed on the left and right sides, and an engine cover with the Corvette crossed flags logo debossed at the front.

The underside of the hood has a visible carbon-fiber-weave. Visible carbon-fiber is used on the roof, roof bow, rocker molding and front splitter. These exterior components are protected by a specially developed glossy, UV-resistant clear coat that resists yellowing and wear.

Widened, carbon-fiber front fenders with specific, dual lower ports; and a full-width, body-color rear spoiler incorporating the center high-mounted stop lamp are also unique to the ZR1. All of the exterior features were developed to enhance high-speed stability and driver control.

Interior Details

The ZR1’s interior builds on the brand’s dual-cockpit heritage, with high-quality materials, craftsmanship and functionality that support the premium-quality experience promised by the car’s performance. The ZR1’s cabin differs from the Corvette and Corvette Z06 with the following:

* ZR1-logo sill plates
* ZR1-logo headrest embroidery
* Specific gauge cluster with “ZR1” logo on the tachometer and a 220-mph (370 km/h) readout on the speedometer
* Boost gauge added to the instrument cluster and Head-Up Display

The standard ZR1 (RPO 1ZR) comes with accoutrements based on the Z06, including lightweight seats and lightweight content. The uplevel interior package (RPO 3ZR) includes power-adjustable, heated and leather-trimmed sport seats (embroidered with the ZR1 logo); side air bags; Bose premium audio system; navigation system; Bluetooth connectivity; power telescoping steering column; custom leather-wrapped interior available in four colors and more.

By the Numbers

In addition to the exterior cues and powertrain, ZR1 models will be distinguished from other Corvette models by their VIN. Each will carry a unique, identifying VIN digit, as well as a sequential build number. This makes it easy to determine the build number of a specific car – information treasured by enthusiasts and collectors. For example, a ZR1 with a VIN ending in “0150” would indicate it is the 150 th ZR1 built for the model year.

Chris Harris puts the new Porsche 977 GT2 to the test, but will it preform as good as the Corvette Z06.

The 2008 Porsche 911 GT2 (977)

Ever since the introduction of the Porsche 911 GT2 (993 series) in 1994, the GT2 has been a statement to the true potential of the current 911 chassis.  The formula is simple: jam a hopped-up version of the current 911 Turbo engine in the lightweight RWD chassis, pull off some creature comforts and voila, you have a serious piece of automotive hardware.  With the debut of the 997 GT2, not much had changed from Porsche’s original philosophy.

From the outset the goal of the engineers in Zuffenhausen was to surpass the performance of the 911 Turbo and the sportiness of 911 GT3.  In addition Porsche wanted to implement “pure driving dynamics” at the highest level.  Aerodynamically the downforce generated has been increased significantly across both axles, and more importantly, balanced.  Up front this is accomplished with a front bumper spoiler lip and a small vent in front of the hood.  Out back the rear wing profile is much more dramatic and integrates a ram-air induction system for the engine.  Remarkably the coefficient of drag has been reduced from 0.34 to 0.32 even though more cooling is required and more downforce is generated.

Under The Hood:
Underneath the monster wings lies a 3.6 liter DOHC Flat-6, equipped with no less than 9 oil pumps and featuring a radical new expansion intake system and a titanium silencer.  The expansion intake system takes advantage of air cooling as it expands, reducing fuel consumption by up to 15%.  Porsche’s VarioCam Plus system is used to continuously vary both valve timing and valve lift.  Feeding air into the engine are two Garrett VGT (variable geometry turbine) turbochargers, boosting 1.4bar of intercooled air into the combustion chambers.  The result is 530hp @ 6,500rpm and 501 lb-ft @ 2,200rpm and coincidentally the acceleration is staggering.  0-60 is dismissed in 3.7 seconds and a top speed of 204mph is possible.

To ensure that drivers not named Walter Rohrl can achieve these results, the GT2 is fitted with a launch control system.  When engaged the system holds the engine at 5,000rpm until 0.9bar of boost is built up, then the clutch is engaged as quickly as possible and wheelspin is mitigated by the traction control system.  Further technical wizardry is employed with the use of PASM (Porsche Active Stability Management) for the first time on a GT2 model.  This system incorporates a braking/throttle control, traction control and an anti-lock braking system to form one of the most highly respected stability programs in the industry.

The Verdict:
Settings have been specifically tuned for the extremely sporty nature of the GT2 and it can be completely disabled for those brave enough to drive without it.  One thing has always been guaranteed when you buy a Porsche is that it will have world-class brakes.  Of course the 997 GT2 is no exception, featuring PCCB (Porsche Ceramic Composite Brakes) measuring 380mm up front and 350mm out back.  The battle tested 6-speed manual transmission from the 997 GT3 Cup is standard, with GT2 specific gear ratios to take advantage of the monster torque curve.  So what does all this add up to?  Well let me sum it up in a simple equation: 2008 Porsche 911 GT2 + Walter Rohrl + Nordschleife = 7:32 lap time.

The new Z06 arrived as a 2006 model in the third quarter of 2005. It has a 7.0 L (7,008 cc/427.6 CID) version of the small block engine codenamed LS7. Officially certified output is 505 hp (377 kW). Its performance is significantly better than the Ford Mustang and comparable to the Dodge Viper SRT-10. Official performance figures indicate that the Z06 can reach 60 mph (97 km/h) in just 3.4 seconds from a standing start in first gear, hitting 0–100 in about 7.3–8.2, with a quarter mile time of 11.4 and a top speed of 198 mph (electronically limited). In the summer of 2005, GM and Corvette Racing driver Jan Magnussen brought the new Z06 to the Nürburgring in Germany. Magnussen drove the Z06 to a time of 7:42. In their March 2007 comparison, Car and Driver selected the Corvette Z06 as the winner of their three-way comparison test of performance cars, with the Porsche 911 GT3 finishing second and the Lotus Exige S third.

Corvette Z06

In addition to the larger engine, the C6 Z06 has a dry sump oiling system, ensuring proper engine lubrication during periods of high (lateral) acceleration and allowing the engine to be mounted low inside the chassis. Connecting rods made out of titanium further lighten the reciprocating mass of the engine while being stronger than the steel rods they replace.

In a radical departure from anything Chevrolet has ever done before, the primary structural element of the C6 Z06 is aluminum instead of steel as on the non-Z06 cars. The hydroformed aluminum frame remains dimensionally identical to its steel brethren but is significantly lighter. The front fenders are made of carbon fiber to reduce weight, while wider rear fenders allow for the wider tires necessary to deal with the engine’s increased power. For an additional mass savings of 6 kg, the Z06 replaced the base model’s aluminum engine cradle with one made from high pressure die cast magnesium. The Z06 officially weighs 3130 lb (1421 kg), giving it a power to weight ratio of 6.2 lb/hp (3.8 kg/kW or 361 bhp (269 kW) per tonne). The C6 Corvette Z06 is the first 500+ hp production car to avoid the U.S. government Gas Guzzler tax.

The Z06 was the official pace car for both the 2006 Daytona 500 and the Indianapolis 500 race. The special Pace Car edition Z06 was unveiled at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January. It was also awarded to St. Louis Cardinals shortstop David Eckstein as his prize for being the 2006 World Series MVP, although Eckstein does not know how to drive a stick. The 2007 Z06 was also one of Automobile Magazine’s “Automobile All-Stars” for 2007.

The 2007 Z06 had minor changes including retuning of the suspension after some magazine test drivers announced the suspension did not perform up to their original estimates. Chevrolet announced the models were pre-released, and for 2007 they would retune the damping. In more recent tests the Corvette has shown improved driveability and track manners.

In 2008 the Z06 received the new TR6060 six speed manual transmission, which replaces the T-56. The steering rack was improved, and the interior plastic bezel was improved. An optional full leather interior (option 3LZ) also became available in limited quantities due to constraints.

Chevrolet Cobalt
The 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt ranks 20 out of 35 Affordable Small Cars. This ranking is based on our analysis of 59 published reviews and test drives of the Chevrolet Cobalt, and our analysis of reliability and safety data.
The Cobalt delivers a smooth ride and attempts to provide upscale features in its cabin, but it’s overall appeal falls short of the top-ranked cars in its class.

Road and Track leads those who call the 2008 Cobalt, a replacement for the long-standing Chevy Cavalier in Chevy’s lineup, “a thoroughly modern, class-challenging contender,” in the affordable small car class. But still, the Cobalt ranks in the middle of the class because it doesn’t match the performance and comfort of other small sedans. The Cobalt’s ranking is also hurt by criticisms concerning a cramped rear seat and a coarse base engine. What the Cobalt does provide, however, is competitive gas mileage in the presence of $4 gas.

The 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt is a carryover model that comes as a two-door coupe or four-door sedan. For 2008, Cobalt dropped its SS trims and added safety equipment. All Cobalts now have side curtain air bags, and the Sport trims now feature StabiliTrak Electronic Stability Control. If you’re in the market for a new affordable small car, consider the Honda Civic, also available in sedan or coupe trims.

* The Cobalt family is a serious presence in the compact-sedan segment.” — Car and Driver
* “The Chevrolet Cobalt will satisfy the needs of drivers looking for economy of price, economy of operation, and a nice, quiet ride.” — New Car Test Drive
* “Solidly built, suitably refined, and attractively priced, it’s an American car that can compete with its foreign rivals. Although by no means a driver’s car, The Cobalt is quiet and refined by the standards of the class.” — Motor Trend
* In contrast, BusinessWeek’s reviewer notes, “In real life, I would shop around and test-drive competing models before going with the Cobalt.” — BusinessWeek

Cobalt Performance – 7.6 (Good)

The Cobalt’s solid performance score is the result of its smooth, responsive ride. New Car Test Drive says, “The Chevrolet Cobalt is quite pleasant to drive, especially the Sport model.” Continue with our full Performance Review for more information on the Cobalt’s performance specifications. continue
Cobalt Exterior – 7.5 (Good)

The 2008 Chevy Cobalt’s simple style earns a good score, but others in the class are more stylish and distinctive. The Sacramento Bee thinks the Cobalt’s design is “understated, but attractive.” Meanwhile, USA Today thinks the Cobalt looks “just saucy enough, embracing neither the juvenile, in-your-face look nor the generic small-car appearance.” Check out the Chevy Cobalt Photo Gallery to see the car’s profile in black, or continue with our full Exterior Review for further comments on the Cobalt’s clean design. continue
Cobalt Interior – 6.4 (Mediocre)

According to our analysis, the 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt’s interior isn’t spacious enough and offers inadequate seating comfort. USA Today says the Cobalt is “too small inside, especially in back, even judged by little-car standards.” But it does offer high-quality cabin materials and sufficient cargo space. Check out the Chevy Cobalt Photo Gallery to assess the car’s dimensions, or continue with our full Interior Review for more information on the Cobalt’s 13.9 cubic feet of available cargo space. continue
Cobalt Safety – 9.5 (Excellent)

The Chevrolet Cobalt is “as good as, if not better than, most of its competition on the safety-equipment front,” according to Motor Trend. The 2008 also scores well in government crash tests. Check out the full Safety Review for crash test results and details on the Cobalt’s safety equipment. continue
Cobalt Reliability – 6.0 (Mediocre)

The 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt reliability score shown is the Predicted Reliability rating provided by J.D. Power and Associates. This score is based on trending the past three years of historical initial quality and dependability data from J.D. Power’s automotive studies, specifically the Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) and the Initial Quality Study (IQS). Cobalts come with Chevy’s three-year or 36,000-mile basic warranty. Continue with our full Reliability Review for additional information on the Cobalt’s reliability

Inspired by a “half-soldier, half-modern” military helmet, the Chevrolet Groove concept is contemporary and funky, but evokes classic Chevrolet heritage design cues like an upright windshield and prominent fender flares that give the Groove a strong, sturdy stance reminiscent of a retro hot rod.

Groove lead exterior designer Jawook Koo, of the GM Design Center in Inchon , South Korea , was seeking a mini design that was big on presence.

“I wanted to get out of the mini vehicles stereotype that is characterized by a weak, insecure and ‘cute’ appearance, so that consumers can feel safe just by looking at the vehicle,” said Koo.

The Groove’s design conveys anything but weakness. The striking matte Lunar Quartz exterior finish contrasts with the strategic use of satin silver exterior chrome details. Big, five-spoke 17-inch wheels pushed all the way to the rear give the impression of a vehicle that’s much longer than it is, thanks to the short-but-pronounced hood and long, flat cabin, a design that provides for a roomy interior. Contrasting Vertigo brake calipers bring additional attention to the big wheels.

The front overhang includes open-air vents that are integrated into the front LED fog lamps, and the elongated front headlamps further “lengthen” the vehicle.

Getting this front-wheel-drive concept in the Groove is a highly efficient, 1-liter diesel engine.

Chevy uses a one-liter diesel engine to power this “rolling military helmet,” but that’s not the prime attraction in the Groove concept.

This mini-size vehicle was designed in Korea at a GM design center, and the overall theme is aimed to avoid the “weak, insecure” appearance of a tiny vehicle and offer a feeling of big-vehicle safety. Exterior paint is matte Lunar Quartz, highlighted by a liberal use of satin silver chrome trim details.

They were a long time getting here, but General Motors’ new jumbo-midsize crossover SUVs–the 2007 GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook and the 2008 Buick Enclave–are among the few bright spots in the company’s current sales picture. For 2009 comes a planned Chevrolet version of this Lambda-platform design. Called Traverse, it should be priced just below the Outlook as the most affordable of the foursome, but will likely be lighter on standard equipment.

Predictably, the 2009 Chevrolet Traverse will differ mainly in exterior styling and interior trim. The main visual distinction will be a bold Chevy-look nose a la the Uplander minivan and 2008 midsize Malibu sedan. Uplander is GM’s sole surviving traditional minivan, and Traverse is its eventual replacement, just as Enclave and Outlook have already supplanted the Buick Rendezvous and Saturn Relay. Incidentally, Consumer Guide classifies all Lambda models as midsize SUVs, but Traverse is considerably larger than Chevrolet’s Equinox crossover, which is built on the corporate Theta platform shared with the Pontiac Torrent.

At the Chicago Auto Show, Chevrolet rolled out the fourth and hopefully final member of its Lambda crossover family, the new Traverse. By the way, according to Chevrolet the proper pronunciation puts the emphasis on the second syllable. Like its Saturn, GMC and Buick siblings, the new Traverse is a full-size vehicle that is almost the same size as the Tahoe. That means it has seating for up to eight occupants, although three in the last row is a bit of a squeeze.

GM invited the media out to its Milford Proving Ground last week for a first drive of the Traverse, which of course we attended on your behalf. We had the chance to sample the big CUV in several different scenarios against what the marketing staff consider its main competitor, the Toyota Highlander. We ran the Chevy and Toyota back to back on the ride road, the skid pad, a lane change and slalom course and while towing a 4,200-lb boat. Check out how the Traverse fared after the jump.

The new Traverse is the only member of the Lambda family not built at GM’s Delta Township assembly plant in Lansing, MI. Once the company decided that future Saturns would primarily be re-badged Opels, the Spring Hill, TN plant that was once the home of GM’s “different kind of car company” became available. The Traverse is the first non-Saturn vehicle ever built at Spring Hill and the first without a plastic body.

Unlike the 1980s and ’90s, GM has finally learned how to give its platform-sharing vehicles distinctive looks that go beyond a different grille and taillights. Of course, within the confines of a CUV wagon body style there is only so much you can do, although Ford has managed to spin some even more distinctive looks from its platform stablemates. You couldn’t tell by looking at them, for instance, that the Taurus X and Flex share the same architecture. If you squint, however, the same general profile shared by all of GM’s Lambda CUVs is present and accounted for on the Traverse.
Nonetheless, Chevrolet designers have managed to incorporate themes of current bow-tie vehicles into this big wagon. The big twin-port grille inspired by the Malibu works well on the Traverse, giving it a smooth yet still aggressive look. Don Butler, Executive Director of Chevy Truck Marketing, highlighted the aerodynamics of the Traverse with a drag coefficient of 0.33 that’s made possible by details like the full width front air dam. The lower edge of the air dam even has a bit of splitter, helping divert air around instead of under the vehicle.

Of course, what Butler neglected to mention was that vehicle drag has two components, the drag coefficient and the frontal area. No matter how low the Cd of the Traverse, a big high-riding crossover or SUV still has to move a lot of air out of the way. That said, every little bit helps. On the outside, GM at least put a lot of effort into the details, like 3.5mm door gaps that contribute to the CUVs quality appearance.

On the inside, the Traverse gets the full array of equipment people expect in modern vehicles, like side curtain airbags for the full length of the vehicle, including the third row. The dashboard design also carries over themes from the Malibu with a sweeping twin cockpit look. Unfortunately, the Traverse seems to have a lot more visible seams than its competitors and the quality of the plastics on these pre-production samples looks and feels less than stellar.

One new feature of the Traverse is blind spot mirrors. Rather than those expensive blind spot sensors being offered increasingly on other vehicles that flash a light in the mirror when another vehicle is in your blind spot, the Traverse has a small wide-angle mirror embedded in the outer top corner of the standard wing mirrors. The wide angle mirror gives you a good look at what’s tucked in behind you.

Unlike the Highlander, the Traverse actually has some usable space behind its third-row seat. In a demonstration with the third-row seat up, Butler wasn’t even able to put a single golf bag into the Toyota and close the hatch. The Traverse, meanwhile, is able to accommodate several suitcases or a couple of golf bags.

Where the Traverse really shines is its driving dynamics. This is the first Lambda CUV to get the direct injected version of GM’s 3.6L V6. The new fuel delivery system boosts output from 270 hp/248 lb-ft up to 288 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque. Besides beefing up the mid-range torque and general responsiveness, the changes boost city mileage for the front-wheel-drive version from 16 to 17 mpg. The highway number, however, remains unchanged at 24 mpg. The numbers for the AWD version are 16 city/23 highway mpg.

The Traverse is available with 17-,18- and 20-inch wheel/tire combinations with the 17- and 20- inchers being unique to the Chevy. The suspension has been re-tuned for the new rolling stock and, compared to the Outlook we drove last year, the Traverse feels more responsive on the road. While the Outlook felt ponderous and heavy, the Traverse feels lighter on its feet. Running through a sweeping corner at 70 mph, it felt stable and tied down. Over rough pavement, the body felt solid and free of rattles. Bumps never unsettled the big wagon. By contrast, the Highlander felt more unsettled and the hood and front fenders were visibly quivering at high speeds.

When we got over to the wet skid-pad to test the stability control, the Traverse was again clearly superior. The brake intervention of the stability control felt seamless and simply guided the vehicle where it was pointed. The Highlander seemed intent on slowing the vehicle and really only responded well to the first steering input. In a double lane change, it understeered heavily on the second steering input going back to the original lane. Like other Toyotas, the Highlander’s stability control also had an annoying beep when active.

Moving over to dry pavement, the Traverse got through the double lane change with minimal body roll and drama. For a 5,000-lb wagon, the Traverse proved quite capable of changing direction quickly. The steering wasn’t as lifeless as some other recent vehicles we’ve tried and even provided a hint of feedback. This is certainly not a sporting vehicle, but if you must drive a big crossover, it’s better than most.

The final test was towing. Chevrolet had a Traverse and Highlander for us to drive, each with a 4,200-lb boat hooked up. The Chevrolet has a 5,200-lb tow rating, a 700-lb improvement over the other Lambdas, while the Toyota is rated at 5,000 lbs. Neither vehicle, however, has trailer sway control available. While the 5,000-lb rating of the Highlander seems impressive, there is actually a pretty significant limitation to this that was pointed out by a Chevrolet engineer. Buried in the owners manual of the Toyota is a warning not to exceed 45 mph when towing. No such restriction exists for the Chevrolet. Accelerating up a mild grade with the boat was possible with both vehicles, although the Chevrolet seemed to strain less. From 60 mph, both vehicles were able to slow to a stop without difficulty.

Overall the enhanced engine gives the Traverse added capability over its Lambda siblings, and in many ways it’s superior to alternatives from other manufacturers. Its driving dynamics are very good for such a large and heavy vehicle, surprising even. The Traverse is the least expensive of the Lambda quartet and, for the moment, the most powerful. We’ll reserve judgment on the fit and finish of the interior until production models appear this fall and we get one in the Autoblog Garage. Job 1 is currently scheduled for early September with an on-sale at the end of that same month. The big question, of course, is with gas above $4 a gallon, will there be enough of a demand for vehicles of this type to keep another assembly plant humming along?

2009 Chevrolet Traverse Preliminary Specifications

The Basics
Vehicle Type: Midsize SUV
Drivetrain
Drive wheels: front, all
Engine: 3.6-liter V-6
Horsepower: 270/275
Torque: 248/251 pound-feet
Transmission: six-speed automatic
Dimensions
Wheelbase: 118.9 inches
Length: 200.5 inches
Width: 78.5 inches
Height: 72.8 inches
Base curb weight: 4925 pounds

Chevrolet hasn’t revealed the price of its 2009 Corvette ZR1, but most of the technical details are being released less than a month before the supercar’s formal launch in mid-January at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show.

The numbers are staggering, to say the least: 620 horsepower and 595 pound-feet of torque from the all-new LS9 engine — a 6.2-liter version of the familiar Chevy small-block V8, fitted with an intercooled Roots-type supercharger from Eaton and mated to a new close-ratio six-speed manual gearbox with dual-disc clutch.

A low curb weight of 3,350 pounds gives the new ZR1 a better power-to-weight ratio than such high-priced, 12-cylinder Italian exotics as the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano and the Lamborghini Murciélago LP640. Chevy boss Ed Peper claims the ZR1 will be “the first production Corvette to achieve a top speed of at least 200 mph.”

Built on the same basic chassis as the Corvette Z06, the ZR1 gets standard magnetic selective ride control with track-level suspension and is capable of pulling better than 1g on the skid pad. The torque tube and half-shafts have been beefed up to handle the additional power, and Chevy has fitted carbon-ceramic brake rotors and larger calipers.

The ZR1 rides on Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires — 285/30ZR-19s in front and 335/25ZR-20s in the rear — mounted on 20-spoke alloy rims painted in bright sterling silver. Chrome wheels are one of only two options on the car.

Chevy designers did a good job of providing the ZR1 with a distinctive exterior look, with loads of carbon fiber, including wide front fenders, a hood with a raised polycarbonate window (so you can see the intercooler below), roof, front-fascia splitter and rocker moldings. A full-width rear spoiler features raised outboard sections and is specific to the ZR1.

The cockpit is surprisingly low-key, considering the car’s target price of just under $100,000. There are a number of pieces from the Z06, accented with a specific ZR1 gauge cluster, including a 220-mph speedo and a boost gauge, plus logo sill plates and embroidered headrests.

In addition to the chrome wheels, the only other option when the car goes on sale next summer will be a luxury interior package, with power sport bucket seats, leather trim, navigation system and Bluetooth connectivity.

Chevy isn’t saying yet just how many ZR1s it will build, but does note that each car will carry a sequential build number and a special VIN that will identify it as a ZR1. As if anyone would have to look….

In anticipation of the ZR1’s introduction at the 2008 Detroit auto show in January, Chevrolet at last has opened the proverbial hood on this, the most powerful, most expensive and most highly anticipated Corvette in the model’s half-century history.

Stop, I Say
There should be no dispute about the effectiveness of the ZR1’s brakes. The rotors are as large as or larger than most wheels were just a decade ago.

In what must be a very sweet moment for a longtime Corvette engineer, Juechter notes that the monster 15-inch Brembo carbon-ceramic rotors fitted as standard to the ZR1’s rear wheels are the brakes originally designed for the front of Ferrari’s 650-hp Enzo supercar. In the front of the ZR1, you’ll find even larger 15.5-inch carbon-ceramic units.

Juechter says, “The only vehicle I know of that has these brakes as standard equipment is the 1,000-hp Bugatti Veyron.” Then he adds with a grin, “Although I think you can get them as a $20,000 option on the Ferrari 599.” We get the sense Juechter will be using these laugh lines many, many times in the near future.

The Price of Production
Chevrolet isn’t about to tell us the price it intends to charge for the 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. But it tells us that the prime motivator for the project has been GM honcho Rick Wagoner, who asked, “What would a $100,000 Corvette look like?” The ZR1 is apparently the answer and we expect the car’s list price will be near enough to the $100,000 mark.

Chevy says it is constrained by production of the carbon-fiber bits to only 2,000 ZR1s per year, and since it seems to us as if we’ve met almost as many Corvette nuts in our career with the funds to bid up the price significantly, we think the list price might be strictly academic in the first year’s production.

So that’s it. There’s no more mystery Corvette. We’ll have to just go ahead and go through the arduous task of driving the thing and testing it.

Shortly thereafter we’ll begin speculating on the C7 Corvette and the circle of life will continue.

We knew what we had to do. Get the first photo ever of a 2009 Camaro doing a burnout — or at least a car that’s a dead ringer for the 2009 Camaro doing a burnout.

So there we were last July near the set of Transformers, cruising along the roads surrounding an old aircraft hangar in Playa Vista, California. We were driving “Bumblebee,” the Camaro that’s the star of this summer’s sure-to-be-blockbuster, looking for the perfect place to blaze the hides off its rear tires.

It’s amazing that we even got permission. “A burnout?” one Paramount Pictures publicity person asked us. “What’s that?”

Driving a Transformer
After lots of assurances that it wouldn’t hurt their movie star except burn some rubber off the rear tires — and despite the agonizing trepidation of both the studio and General Motors — there we were cruising around Howard Hughes’ old digs and shooting photos, trying to find the sweet spot where the light would perfectly catch the blue-gray haze.

With filming taking place so far in advance of production of the 2009 Chevy Camaro, getting the new Camaro into Transformers took massive cooperation between Detroit and Hollywood. The result of this effort is one of the most impressive automotive movie props ever built — a fully functional, fiberglass-bodied replica of the concept car first shown at the 2006 North American International Auto Show. It looks just like the concept car, only it’s painted a better color and actually moves under its own power.

This is a movie prop, so it in no way necessarily indicates how the production Camaro will drive. In fact it has more in common with the just-discontinued, Aussie-made Pontiac GTO because under all that plastic there is a GTO — pulled straight out of GM’s engineering R&D fleet. This feat is in itself nearly as impressive a feat of fabrication as any production car. And this car drives well. In fact it even did its own stunts.

Yeah, it’s fake. But this car and its identical twin (movie companies can’t wait around for a busted car to be fixed so there’s always at least one duplicate) are great fakes.

Getting the Part
There are a shockingly large number of Transformers enthusiasts out there. Weaned on the original Hasbro toys and several television cartoon series, plus comic books, these boys (and they have been virtually all boys) spent the 1980s obsessed with the battle pitting Bumblebee and the other Autobots against the evil Decepticons. Of course, every one of these Transformers geeks knows that the original Bumblebee was a Volkswagen Beetle. But the movie Bumblebee is — purists be damned — a Camaro. Actually two Camaros — first a clapped-out ‘76 F-body that later becomes the ‘09 version.

“This is kind of a special movie in that the cars are characters,” says director Michael Bay. “I wanted to find a special car and I have the best relationship with GM. They took me into their skunkworks and I saw this car. I said, ‘That’s the car.’” Not only did Bay know GM, since he has directed numerous GM commercials (he was also one of the first owners of a Chevy SSR truck), but also GM is unsurprisingly familiar with the film’s producer, Steven Spielberg.

“I didn’t hesitate and saw the opportunity,” explained Steve Tihanyi, GM’s general director for marketing alliances and entertainment. “There was really no hesitation. It was only whether I could deliver what he needed. We’ve done a lot of things together. This movie is going to be chock-full of product.” With filming to take place throughout 2006, getting the two “Camaros” necessary for filming would take a stupendous effort.

Saleen’s Thrash
General Motors is in the business of building thousands of vehicles every day. But when it comes to building just two of a type, well, that’s not GM’s gig. That’s where Saleen Specialty Vehicles comes in. Yeah, it’s that Saleen: the company that made its bones building high-performance variants of the Ford Mustang. But its facility in Troy, Michigan, where the Ford GT was assembled, is also one of Detroit’s most respected builders of show vehicles, and it even already had some movie experience.

Saleen was hired by GM at the suggestion of Steve Mann, the picture vehicle coordinator on Transformers, who while doing similar duties on the 2005 film XXX: State of the Union, had worked with Saleen in creating movie-car versions of Ford’s Cobra concept. But beyond that, Mann had also worked directly with Steve Saleen on 2003’s Hollywood Homicide and, coincidentally, their daughters had been roommates for a year while attending USC. In short, Steve Mann knew what Saleen could accomplish.

Since the GTO with its 109.8-inch wheelbase is already about the same size as the Camaro Concept with its 110.5-inch wheelbase, the Australian-built Pontiac became a natural base upon which to build the two Bumblebees. But the GTO is built around a unitized structure, so Saleen couldn’t simply drop a new body onto the chassis. “Basically it was reverse-engineered by our build team,” explains Bryan Chambers, the director of production at Saleen. “We had less than 45 days to build both cars so it was a barn-burner.”

To simplify, the bodies were chopped off the two 5.7-liter, LS1-powered GTOs while box frames of steel were welded up to compensate for the lost structure. Then a team led by Jon Zorn in Saleen’s showcar body shop grafted on the GM-supplied fiberglass bodies that had been pulled from the same molds used to build the concept car.

Throw in an interior also formed with fiberglass pieces, a lot of detail components (like the composite hubcaps that make the huge steel wheels look like the alloys on the concept) and a couple gallons of gorgeous gold paint and the result is the car we’re driving along the access roads outside the old Howard Hughes aircraft hangar.

Piloting Bumblebee
The old Hughes hangar in Playa Vista has been a popular place for filmmakers to shoot for decades. It’s huge and tall, so big that impressive sets can be built inside. Also it’s just down the street from Los Angeles International Airport, so all the talented craft and trades people that make for a great movie can easily get to the site. Fortunately for us (including photographer Randy Lorentzen), the hangar is also surrounded by private roads that once connected the various buildings on Hughes’ extended property. This is critical, since the Bumblebee Camaro is nowhere near street legal and doesn’t carry any sort of registration for operation on public roads.

From afar the Bumblebee Camaro is simply gorgeous; the shape that mesmerized on the show stands looks even better in sunlight. Up close, this movie prop is even more impressive, despite plenty of fakery including plastic door handles that are supposed to look like metal and plexiglass side windows that don’t roll down. This isn’t some cheap splash of fiberglass done up by amateurs, but rather Corvette-quality resin and mat. Every piece of the body is perfectly formed, the panels fit to each other with precision and the paint is thick and luminous. It’s not a production car, but it could easily pass for one.

Inside the cabin, fiberglass panels cover components that obviously have their origins in the donor GTO. For instance, the instrumentation is simply the GTO’s gauges covered in new frames, while the seats come straight from the Pontiac. Most of the surfaces the driver touches are hard plastic instead of the soft-touch stuff found in production machines, but it’s all been nicely shaped and beautifully finished. Impressively, Saleen has even managed to keep the GTO’s air-conditioning system intact, for which I’m sure the stunt drivers were grateful while filming during the heat last summer.

Bumblebee Awakes
The car starts instantly and falls easily into a familiar, throaty idle. The four-speed automatic transmission’s shift lever has been modified from a GTO piece and it works fine. Get the car rolling and there’s some road noise from the big tires since there’s little sound-deadening material aboard, but there are only a few creaks around where the body is bonded to the frame.

The steering feels fine, the brakes seem to work fine and there was no real chance to find out how the suspension worked. But my guess is that it worked just as if it were still under GTO bodywork.

This is a miracle, because most movie cars are utter crap, clapped-out junkers barely mobile enough to roll across the movie screen and blow up spectacularly. They’re incredibly lethal to drive, a mix of unpredictable dynamics and ongoing electrical fires. This Bumblebee, on the other hand, looks just about perfect and seems sweet-natured enough to do the morning commute. And when Justin Mann from the Transformers picture-car department got in it to do the burnout, it fried its tires like a seasoned street racer.

No muss, no fuss. Most important, thank God, nothing broke, so the movie crew didn’t chase me down the street while waving ax handles. We might even still have a career.

This may not be the next Camaro, but if Chevy’s lucky there will be some Bumblebee in every new Camaro it builds. Especially the ability to burn down those tires.

Statistics

A typical American car dealership in Fremont, California. Between 2002 and 2003 alone the number of vehicles in the United States increased by three million.
The United States Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration as well as the National Automobile Dealers Association have published data in regard to the total number of vehicles, growth trends, and ratios between licensed drivers, the general population, and the increasing number of vehicles on American roads. Overall passenger vehicles have been outnumbering licensed drivers since 1972 at an ever increasing rate, while light trucks and vehicles manufactured by foreign marques have gained a larger share of the automotive market in the United States. In 2001, 90% of Americans drove to work in cars. New York City is the only locality in the country where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%).

According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2004 there are 243,023,485 registered passenger vehicles in the US. Out of these roughly 243 million vehicles, 136,430,651 (56.13%) were classified as cars, while 91,845,327 (37.79%) were classified as “Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles,” presumably SUVs and pick-up trucks. Yet another 6,161,028 (2.53%) were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,010,335 (0.82%) were classified as “Truck, combination.” There were approximately 5,780,870 motorcycles in the US in 2004, which accounts for 2.37% of all registered passenger vehicles.
According to cumulative data by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) the number of motor vehicles has also increased steadily since 1960, only stagnating once in 1997 and declining from 1990 to 1991. Otherwise the number of motor vehicles has been rising by an estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight million. Since the study by the FHA the number of vehicles has increased by approximately eleven million, one of the largest recorded increases. The largest percentage increase was between the years of 1972 and 1973 when the number of cars increased by 5.88%.

Age of vehicles in operation
In the year 2001, the National Automobile Dealers Association conducted a study revealing the average age of vehicles in operation in the US. The study found that of vehicles in operation in the US, 38.3% were older than ten years, 22.3% were between seven and ten years old, 25.8% were between three and six years old and 13.5% were less than two years old. According to this study the majority of vehicles, 60.6%, of vehicles were older than seven years in 2001. This relatively high age of automobiles in the US might be explained through gradually declining sales figures since 1998.
The median and mean age of automobiles has steadily increased since 1969. In 2005 the overall median age for automobiles was 8.9 years, a significant increase over 1990 when the median age of vehicles in operation in the US was 6.5 years and 1969 when the mean age for automobiles was 5.1 years. Of all body styles, pick-up trucks had the highest mean age (9.4 years), followed by cars with a mean age of 8.4 years and van with a mean age of 7.0 years. As SUVs are part of a relatively new consumer trend originating mostly in the 1990s, SUVs had the lowest mean age of any body style in the US (6.1 years). The average recreational vehicle was even older with a mean age of 12.5. The mean age has increased continuously for all body styles from 1969 to 2005.

Sales
In the year 2004, 7,505,932 passengers cars were sold in the United States according to the US Department of Transportation. This figure “Includes domestic and imported vehicles.” (Department of Transportation) The number of vehicles sold in the US has been decreasing at a gradual yet continuous rate since 1999, when nearly 8.7 million vehicles were sold in the US. Looking back at history however, reveals that such decline is only part of normal market trends and most likely only a temporary affair. Overall, 1985 was a record year with cars sales totaling just over eleven million. While imports have been gaining ground in terms of units sold during the 2000s and have regained roughly the same market share they held in 1992, the sales of domestic vehicles are still more than double those of imported vehicles. It should be noted however that the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics “Includes cars produced in Canada and Mexico” as domestic vehicles as both countries are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In 2004 the sales of vehicles made in NAFTA states totaled 5.4 million, while the sale of imported vehicles totaled 2.1 million. 798,000 vehicles were imported from Japan, making it the greatest exporter of vehicles to the US. Germany was the second largest exporter of vehicles to the US, with 542,000 units exported to the US in 2004. Imports from all other nations, except Germany and Japan, totaled 809,000.

Pricing

Full-size SUVs such as the Chevrolet Suburban had an average sticker price of $42k, but were sold for an average 22% discount, bringing the net price down to $33k. Overall, large non-luxury SUVs featured the largest discounts in the SUV segment (Edmunds.com).
In July 2004, Edmunds.com published a report stating that the average sticker price on a vehicle sold in the United States was $29,746. However, in the US, passenger vehicles are commonly sold at considerable discounts and customers rarely pay the sticker price or MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price). The discount is commonly determined by the company’s marketing strategies and tends to be larger the slower selling a vehicle is. Due to what many American consumers have perceived as a declining quality among the automobiles manufactured by the “Big Three” and large fixed labor and capital costs, discounts tend to be larger on domestic vehicles. In 2003 the average discount on a domestic vehicle was 20.6% below MSRP. For Japanese and Korean vehicles the average discount was 10% and 12.8%. The lowest discounts were given on vehicles from European manufacturers, where the average discount was 7.7% below MSRP. Overall, the average discount in July 2004 was $4,982 (16.8%), meaning that while the average MSRP was almost $30,000, the average buyer of a new car paid only $24,764.[9] Dr. Jane Liu, the Vice President of Data Analysis for Edmunds.com further stated that, “New models are being introduced at higher price points, but the competitiveness of the market is dramatically pushing down net prices, resulting in a record average discount.” The lowest discounts among all car segments were given on luxury SUVs, where buyers received an average 10% discount, resulting in a $43,725 net price, versus the sticker price of $48,586.
Fuel economy

A Hummer H2, with an estimated fuel economy of 9 miles per gallon, is often criticized by environmentalist groups for its abysmal fuel economy.

A Toyota Prius Hybrid, features an EPA fuel economy rating of 55 miles per gallon (45% above national average). It was recently named the most fuel efficient vehicle in the United States by the Sierra Club, and has been cited as an example by environmentalists and celebrities to make a statement in favor of more fuel efficient vehicles.
The American automobile industry became notorious for the manufacture of gas guzzlers during the 1960s and 1970s when fuel prices and consumer awareness concerning fuel economy were at an all-time low. In the 1960s and 1970s, American-made cars took on enormous proportions as consumers placed their emphasis on comfort, power and style. Large sedans from this era came to be known as land yachts, often rivaling today’s largest pick-up trucks in terms of length and width. In 1977, the Lincoln Continental Mark V was reviewed by the German automobile magazine, auto motor und sport and still holds the record for the worst fuel economy of any vehicle ever tested by the magazine with an average of seven miles to the gallon.
Following the oil crisis of the early 1970s, however, smaller vehicles, often imported from Japan, became more and more popular with the American public as these vehicles featured better fuel economy ratings. In the late 1970s, the US government passed minimum fuel economy standards and in the 1980s American automobile manufacturers drastically downsized their cars, only a few vehicles, such as those using the Ford Panther platform retained their over-sized glory. The downsizing did, however, backfire in some cases. After downsizing nearly the entire Cadillac line-up in the late 1980s, General Motors scrambled to save its most prestigious marques. Many American manufacturers again increased the size of their vehicles in the 1990s, while better technology allowed for better fuel economy ratings among sedans.
According to the United States Department of Transportation, the average motor vehicle, including light trucks, in the US had a fuel economy rating of 17.1 miles a gallon or 13.8 liters per 100 kilometers. The average fuel economy for passenger vehicles in the United States has remained stagnant throughout the 1990s and 2000s, peaking in 2001 and 2004. Overall, the past decade has seen the slowest increase in fuel economy since 1960, with fuel economy increasing from 16.4 miles a gallon in 1990 to 17.1 miles a gallon today. This is in contrast to the 1980s when the average fuel economy improved somewhat more significantly from 13.3 miles a gallon in 1980 to 16.4 miles a gallon in 1990. The lackluster increase in fuel economy during the 1990s is largely due to the rising popularity of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), whose status as light trucks gains them exception from the fuel economy restrictions placed on sedans and other cars. According to the Sierra Club “In 1997 all three US automakers violated CAFE standards for light trucks.” The Sierra Club is one of many environmental organizations who warn of the low fuel economy of SUV and hold these vehicles largely responsible for the low average fuel economy of vehicles in the United States.

Average fuel economy in miles per gallon according to the US Department of Transportation.

Year 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
MPG 12.4 12.5 12.0 12.2 13.3 14.6 16.4 16.9 16.9 16.7 16.7 16.8 16.9 17.0 16.9 16.7 16.9 17.1 16.9 17.0 17.1
L/100 km 19.0 18.8 19.6 19.3 17.7 16.1 14.3 13.9 13.9 14.1 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.9 14.1 13.9 13.7 13.9 13.8 13.7
Vehicle and population ratios since 1960
Year Population Drivers Motor
vehicles Increase
in vehicles % Growth
1960 180 87 74 N/A N/A
1961 183 89 76 2 +2.72
1962 186 91 79 2 +2.63
1963 188 94 83 3 +3.79
1964 191 95 86 3 +3.61
1965 194 99 90 4 +4.65
1966 196 101 94 4 +4.44
1967 197 103 97 3 +3.19
1968 199 105 101 4 +4.12
1969 201 108 105 4 +3.96
1970 204 112 108 3 +2.85
1971 207 114 113 5 +4.62
1972 209 118 119 6 +5.30
1973 211 122 126 7 +5.88
1974 213 125 130 4 +3.17
1975 215 130 133 3 +2.30
1976 218 134 139 6 +4.51
1977 220 138 142 3 +2.15
1978 222 141 148 6 +4.22
1979 225 143 152 4 +2.70
1980 227 145 156 4 +2.63
1981 230 147 158 2 +1.28
1982 232 150 160 2 +1.26
1983 234 154 164 4 +2.50
1984 236 155 166 2 +1.21
1985 239 157 172 6 +3.61
1986 241 159 176 4 +2.32
1987 243 161 179 3 +1.70
1988 246 163 184 5 +2.79
1989 248 166 187 3 +1.63
1990 248 167 189 2 +1.01
1991 252 169 188 -1 -0.52
1992 255 173 190 2 +1.06
1993 258 173 194 4 +2.10
1994 260 175 198 4 +2.06
1995 263 177 202 4 +2.02
1996 265 180 206 4 +1.98
1997 268 183 208 4 +1.94
1998 270 185 208 0 +/-0
1999 273 187 216 8 +3.84
2000 281 191 218 2 +0.92
2001 281 191 226 8 +3.66
2002 288 195 230 4 +1.76
2003 291 196 231 1 +0.43
All numbers in millions;

SOURCE: US Department of Transportation
Since 1960, the number of passenger vehicles has steadily risen, and since 1972 has exceeded the number of licensed drivers. Considering the population in the United States of 293,655,404 during the 2004 economic survey,[14] there is one passenger vehicles for every 1.20 persons in the United States, meaning that there are 833.34 passenger vehicles for every 1,000 Americans. According to the Federal Highway Administration there were an estimated 196 million licensed drivers in the United States in the year 2003. Considering the slightly lower number of motor vehicles for 2003, there were an estimated 1.17 motor vehicles per licensed driver, meaning that there are more vehicles than drivers in the US, with vehicles outnumbering drivers 1.2 to one.
The number of motor vehicles in the US has risen by 157 million (212.16%) since 1960, while the population of licensed drivers grew by 109 million (125.28%). Between 1971 and 1972, the number of motor vehicles in the US increased by four million, a record at the time. Since then, the gap between the number of cars and drivers has continuously risen. While in 1972 there were only one million more motor vehicles than drivers, cars outnumber drivers by 35 million in 2003. This means that while there were 0.84% more motor vehicles than drivers in 1972, there are now 17.85% more vehicles than drivers.

Body style and size
Mainstream mid-size sedans such as the Toyota Camry or Ford Taurus are often perceived to be the typical and most common body style in the United States. While mid-size sedans are indeed among the country’s best selling vehicles, pick-up trucks currently hold the top positions, rivaling sedans in the terms of total numbers sold. In the year 2006, the best selling models were the Ford F Series with 796,039 units sold and the Chevrolet Silverado with 636,069 units sold. The Toyota Camry, Dodge Ram, and Honda Accord held the next three positions as the best selling cars

Manufacturing

The Mercury Milan, despite being manufactured in Mexico, is still considered a domestic vehicle.

The Saab 9-7X, despite being manufactured in the US by GM, is still considered an import vehicle.
The US was the largest producer of vehicles in the world in 2003, followed by Japan and Germany. While most vehicles sold in the US were manufactured by the Big Three, foreign corporations such as Japan’s Toyota Motor Company have starting manufacturing in the US and are now an integrated part of the US automobile industry. According to many sources, the extended US operations of foreign based companies now rival those of American automobile manufacturers. For example, Toyota Motor Company now operates twelve manufacturing plants in the US, producing 1.55 million vehicles, 61.66% of the roughly 2.5 million vehicles the company sells in the US each year.
A wide variety of vehicles are manufactured in the United States, from compacts to full-size luxury vehicles. The American automobile industry itself is probably best known for the manufacture of large cars, leading to the common public perception of American cars being larger than those from other countries and making the US well known for the production of so called land yachts. Currently, light trucks (including SUVs) of all sizes and full-sized sedans constitute the majority of vehicles made by workers of the United Auto Workers union (UAW).] The Lincoln Town Car is currently the most expensive and largest car made in the US by an American manufacturer, while the Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum is the most expensive SUV (This title used to held by the Hummer H1 until it was cancelled in May 2006). The largest passenger vehicle currently produced in the United States is the Dodge Ram Extended Cab.

Domestic vehicles
While the denotation of domestic vehicle includes all vehicles made in the United States, the term Domestic vehicle in the United States is usually only applied to vehicles made by the “Big Three” and their traditional marques. The term domestic vehicle does not include vehicles sold under marques who used to be headquartered outside the United States and are now owned by the Ford Motor Company or General Motors. Ironically, vehicles made outside the US by the traditional marques of the “Big Three” are considered to be domestic vehicles, while vehicles made inside the US by foreign manufacturers are not considered domestic, but rather import vehicles.

The Mercedes-Benz R-Class is one of many vehicles that is marketed as an import vehicle due to the national origin of its manufacturer, yet is manufactured in the United States.
Import vehicles
As with the term domestic vehicles, there is a legal definition for import vehicles but popular usage of the term, and popular views of what constitutes an “import” vehicle, vary widely.
For the purposes of Federal regulations, such as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and the American Automobile Labeling Act of 1994 (AALA), vehicles produced in the United States, regardless of brand, are considered “domestic”, while vehicles produced outside the United States are considered “imported”.
However, many Americans view a Toyota vehicle made in Kentucky, or a Mercedes-Benz vehicle made in Alabama as an “import”, while others view a Pontiac vehicle made in Australia as a “domestic” vehicle. This perception is due to the respective brands’ longstanding association with their parent countries: Toyota with Japan, Mercedes-Benz with Germany and Pontiac with the United States.

The country of origin of any particular vehicle can be easily determined:
• The AALA requires that passenger vehicles manufactured after October 1, 1994 must have labels specifying their percentage value of U.S./Canadian parts content, the country of assembly, and countries of origin of the engine and transmission. These are typically part of, or adjacent, to the vehicle’s Monroney Label.
• Each vehicle sold in the United States carries a Vehicle Identification Number, as required by NHTSA regulation — Title 49, Part 565 of the U.S. Code. The VIN identifies the vehicle’s country of manufacture, and the company responsible for its production. Vehicles manufactured in the United States have VINs beginning with the numbers 1, 4, and 5 — regardless of where the company is based. Thus, a Toyota Camry made in the U.S. will have a 1, 4 or 5 at the start of its VIN, while one imported from Japan will begin with the letter J.
In the year 2000, according to an article in the magazine Motor BMW attempted to label its “X5″ Sport Utility Vehicle, made in Spartanburg, South Carolina with a VIN beginning with the letter W — indicating the vehicle was made in Germany. A spokesman for the Society of Automotive Engineers, the agency responsible for assigning the three-digit “World Manufacturer Identifier” that begins the VIN label, was quoted as saying “We assign (codes) according to the dirt the plant’s built on, not the headquarters of the company.”
The Big Three
“The Big Three” refers to the three largest automobile manufacturers headquartered in the United States. While there have been roughly 1,800 car manufacturers in the US over the course of the 20th century, only three large corporations with considerable sales numbers were left by the 1980s. The terms is applied to General Motors, the Ford Motor Company, and the Chrysler Corporation.
General Motors

The Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit serves as the global headquarters of General Motors.
See General Motors for a complete overview of the corporation

General Motors is the largest automobile manufacturer in the United States and the world. GM is headquartered at the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit, employs approximately 327,000 people, sold 9.17 million cars world-wide, and had a $192.6 billion revenue for the year 2005. The corporation sells its vehicles in the United States under the following divisions and subsidiaries:
• Buick
• Cadillac
• Chevrolet
• GMC
• Hummer
• Pontiac
• Saab
• Saturn

Ford Motor Company

A Ford assembly line in 1913, ten years after the company was founded in 1903.
See Ford Motor Company for a complete overview of the corporation

The Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) was founded in 1904 by Henry Ford, and is America’s second largest and the world’s third largest vehicle manufacturer according to total sales volume. In 2005, the Ford Motor Company had a total revenue of $178.1 billion. The corporation sells vehicles under the following brand names and subsidiaries:
• Aston Martin (Ford retains a roughly 7.7% stake[27])
• Ford
• Jaguar (also has the rights to the Daimler brand in some markets)
• Land Rover (both Land Rover and Jaguar were sold in 2008 to Tata Motors)
• Lincoln
• Mazda
• Mercury
•

Chrysler

The Chrysler 300 has become one of the best selling American sedans and has marked Chrysler’s revival, according to many critics.
See Chrysler for more detailed description

Formed in 1925 by Walter Percy Chrysler, the Chrysler Corporation has since been one of the most important American automobile manufacturers, consistently ranking as the third-biggest for most of the post-war period.
In 1998, the Chrysler Corporation officially merged with Daimler-Benz of Germany, into a new entity, DaimlerChrysler (DCX), which is headquartered both in Stuttgart, Germany and Auburn Hills, Michigan (where the pre-merger headquarters of DaimlerBenz and Chrysler, respectively, were located). This raised a dispute on whether Chrysler (or, more specifically, the Chrysler Group within DCX, which consists of most former Chrysler Corporation operations and is headquartered in Auburn Hills) can still be seen as a domestic manufacturer. Nevertheless, the term “Big Three” still applied. Chrysler is once again an independent American corporation as of 2007.
In 2005, the Chrysler Group employed 83,130 people and sold 2.83 million vehicles globally, generating $57.4 billion in revenue. Chrysler manufactures and sells vehicles under the following brands:
• Chrysler
• Dodge
• Jeep
Other automakers with manufacturing operations in United States

The best-selling passenger car in the United States is not one from the Big Three, but the Toyota Camry, although it is also manufactured in the US
BMW
See BMW AG for a complete overview of the corporation
BMW opened its American manufacturing plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina in 1994, to manufacture the Z3 roadster, later replaced by the Z4 model. Since 2000, the plant also manufactures the X5 SUV. All those models are made exclusively at Spartanburg for both the domestic market and worldwide exports (not counting CKD operations in some countries).

Honda
See Honda for a complete overview of the corporation
Honda was the first Japanese automaker to build a factory in the United States. Following the success of the Accord, the company opened a new plant in Marysville, Ohio in 1982 to assemble the model, which went on to become the most popular car in the US in 1989. Honda expanded their operations and the scope of models manufactured in the US, building the Anna engine plant and East Liberty automobile assembly plant, and in 2001 opening Honda Manufacturing of Alabama in Lincoln. Most models sold under the Honda and Acura brands in North America are currently manufactured in either the U.S. or Canada. Others, such as the Honda Fit, Honda S2000, Acura TSX, and Acura RL, are imported from Japan. Some vehicles, such as the older CR-V (in the eastern United States) and the Civic SI hatchback, were imported from the UK. Some Accord passenger cars were imported from Mexico in the early 2000s.

Hyundai
See Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama for more detailed description
Hyundai Motor Company started manufacturing in the United States in 2005, when their plant in Montgomery, Alabama started the production of the Sonata sedan. It was joined in 2006 by the new Santa Fe SUV.

Mazda
See AutoAlliance International for more detailed description
Ford Motor Company and Mazda Motor Corporation jointly operate an automobile assembly plant in Michigan that currently produces the Mazda6 and the Ford Mustang.

Mercedes-Benz
See Mercedes-Benz U.S. International for more detailed description
In 1997, a year before the merger of Damiler-Benz and Chrysler, the former Daimler-Benz followed the steps of their Bavarian competitor and opened a plant in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, to serve as a worldwide production location for the new M-Class. The M-Class has since then been replaced by a new generation and joined by the new R-Class and GL-Class, also manufactured exclusively in Alabama.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
See Diamond-Star Motors for more detailed description
Mitsubishi Motors entered the American market through a long-standing partnership with Chrysler Corporation, and later this partnership was extended into a 50/50 joint venture manufacturing operation named Diamond-Star Motors (DSM) in Normal, Illinois. In 1991, Mitsubishi took over Chrysler’s share in DSM and in 1995 renamed it Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) Manufacturing Division. The plant has produced a number of Mitsubishi models and their Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth and Eagle derivatives, and currently manufactures vehicles based on the American-designed PS platform – the Galant, Eclipse and Endeavor. Manufacturing of related Chrysler-branded vehicles was taken over by Chrysler Group, and while other related Mitsubishi vehicles are sold worldwide.

Nissan
See Nissan Motors for a complete overview of the corporation
Nissan opened their first factory in the 1980s in Smyrna, Tennessee, joined in the new millennium by another plant in Canton, Mississippi. Most models sold under the Nissan brand in United States, as well as Infiniti QX56, are currently manufactured there – contrary to Toyota or Honda, the company does not have any manufacturing operation in Canada. However, Nissan maintains manufacturing operations in Mexico, from which its smaller U.S.-market cars are imported from. Most North American models are specific to this market, although some models, like the Murano and Quest, are exported to other continents.

Subaru
See Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. for more detailed description
Subaru teamed up with fellow Japanese manufacturer Isuzu, forming a joint-venture called Subaru Isuzu Automotive to build and operate a manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana. The plant made Subaru cars and Isuzu SUVs mostly for the American market until 2003, when Isuzu, facing faltering sales in America, decided to quit the venture selling their share to Subaru for $1. The plant continued to build Isuzu Rodeos under contract until the end of that vehicle’s production run. From then on, the production was limited to Subaru models such as Legacy and its derivatives Outback and Baja, as well as the new B9 Tribeca. The two latter models are only built in Indiana for all markets where they are sold. After Toyota acquired a stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent company of Subaru, it shifted some of the Toyota Camry production to the Lafayette plant.

Toyota Motor Corporation

See Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America for more detailed description
Toyota’s first foray into automobile manufacturing in the United States was NUMMI, a joint venture with General Motors based on the latter’s production facility in California, which started in 1984 and has been manufacturing Toyota models and their versions branded as Geo, Chevrolet and Pontiac. Toyota went on to establish a number of wholly owned plants in states such as Kentucky, Indiana, California, West Virginia and Alabama, as well as in Canada. It does not, however, operate a plant in Mexico. More than half of Toyota-branded vehicles sold in the United States come from American plants. Conversely, all Scions are imported from Japan. Lexus-branded models are imported from Japan or Canada (RX only).

It’s Friday afternoon, our appointment with the Chevrolet Camaro concept car is at hand, and the gray clouds hanging over Milford, Michigan, don’t look like they’re going to disappear anytime soon. As we head east on I-96 toward the Milford exit, a few splatters of rain hit our windshield. General Motors operatives have already warned us that if the ground is wet, the handbuilt prototype won’t be allowed out onto the proving ground’s Black Lake or the south loop—the most action we’ll be granted is to roll the car around under a porte cochere attached to a testing garage.

All of our worries are for naught. The clouds remain, but they’ve shut off their rain faucets and the testing tarmac is dry. My GM escort, designer Christos Roustemis, motions for me to get in the car, with a warning to shut the driver’s door behind me slowly and deliberately. Door closed, I’m sitting in a tall bucket seat with limited adjustments, so I’m perched a bit too high. The seat-mounted belts are not usable. There are no panes of glass in the doors or in the rear quarters, so we’ve got wide, uninterrupted sightlines to both sides.

Roustemis gives me the go-ahead to start the car. I depress the clutch and hit the rudimentary rocker switch on the dash. The concept’s 400-hp, 6.0-liter LS2 Corvette V-8 rumbles to life, I palm the six-speed manual’s huge, billet-aluminum gearshifter knob into first gear, and we’re off. But not like a rocket, that’s for sure. Although this Camaro feels just about as solid as any last-generation F-body car from the 1990s, it’s limited to 40 mph and fairly low revs. (Neither the speedo nor the tach actually works.) We never get beyond third gear. What can we tell you about the way a production Camaro would actually drive? Not a helluva lot.

GM vice chairman Bob Lutz has indicated that, in order for a viable business case to be made for the Camaro, projected annual sales would have to break the six-figure barrier. You don’t have to get the concept car to 60 mph in five seconds or blast into triple digits to know that there ought to be at least a hundred thousand people out there who would want to buy this car if it ever reaches showrooms. After all, one of the bright spots in Ford’s recent gloom has been the Mustang, which sold some 160,000 copies last year, so GM ought to be able to turn two-thirds that many Camaros. This car looks awesome, it will be available with a V-8 driving the rear wheels, and it will be affordable. Most important, unlike so many vehicles in GM’s stable, it’s a car that commands people’s attention. Why else would dozens of automotive journalists from North and South America and Europe have clamored for the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a fragile Camaro prototype that was so emasculated, you couldn’t even hope to burn rubber?

Clearly, it’s too early for anybody to pronounce what a factory Camaro will be like to drive, although some quarters have attempted to do so. We can tell you, though, that sitting in the Camaro’s cabin while the vehicle is in motion just feels right. There’s more than a whiff of retro design in here, but the overall ambience hits all the high notes. Of course, the copious use of billet aluminum for the gearshifter, the center console, the pedals, and the other trim is bound to help any car’s interior; it’s too bad none of it will ever see a showroom. The big sweeps of orange trim on the dash and the door panels, though, are production feasible. “We were going for an anodized [aluminum] look,” says Roustemis. “The orange material is painted Plexiglas, which gives more depth to the color.” The orange trim is mirrored in the secondary gauges in the center console, which thrusts under the instrument panel like a spear, just like the original Camaro’s did.

The wide, short CinemaScope windshield frames the view over the long, broad hood in a way that most of today’s sharply sloped windshields do not. What you see immediately in front of you, of course, is familiar to anyone who’s ever been in a first-generation Camaro. There’s the deep-dish steering wheel, although its spokes are much thicker than the original’s. Beyond the wheel, the prominent twin gauge cluster reaching deep into the dash also harks back to 1969. It was drawn at GM’s California studios by a Frenchman, Julien Montousse, who evolved the surrounding chrome rectangles into strong architectural elements. In a bit of Gallic-influenced hyperbole, he says that “the cluster is the window to the soul of the Camaro.”

In our March issue, we detailed the circuitous road the Camaro concept followed through GM’s design studios before it landed like a meteorite on the Chevy stand at this year’s Detroit auto show. We also described the engineering and financial hurdles that the Camaro must leap before it can roll off an assembly line. The concept car was cobbled together on a modified Cadillac CTS/STS platform, but a production Camaro likely would ride on a version of the rear-wheel-drive Zeta platform from GM’s Down Under division, Holden. Will the Camaro have a live rear axle, like the Mustang, or be indepen-dently suspended? It will all come down to money. A V-6-powered model priced in the low $20,000s is crucial in order for the car to meet volume targets and to compete with the Mustang. GM has plenty of six- and eight-cylinder engines in its stable. A V-8 would need to be cost-effective and more powerful than the Mustang’s 300-hp unit, yet not rub up against the 400-hp Corvette.

In the same way that the Mustang has been a megawatt star for Ford, the Camaro could be one for GM, which could certainly use such a vehicle right now. A modern, relevant Camaro could ride the current muscle car wave, which shows no sign of abating. More important, it could serve as an image flagship for a resurgent Chevy brand in a way that the more expensive Corvette cannot.

There are lots of questions to be answered about the Camaro, but the main one for GM to concern itself with is how, not if, it will take the car to the masses. Only American automakers have the heritage to build pony cars, and pony cars are one of the best ways for Detroit to reconnect with an indifferent public. General Motors has to build the Camaro, because Toyota and Hyundai and BMW can’t.

The ready-to-drive concept car set to premiere in Paris was developed by a GM team around the globe. It is the vision of a new generation of touring car- a design icon that bends the present WTCC regulations. “In addition to the premiere of the Chevrolet WTCC Ultra, we are also celebrating our second victory in the World Touring Car Championship,” says the boss of Chevrolet Europe, Wayne Brannon, referring to Rob Huff’s success in Brno in Czech Republic on September 3. “Our commitment to the WTCC is of enormous value for emotionalizing the brand.”

In line with Chevrolet’s diesel offensive, the compact WTCC Ultra is equipped with a powerful 1,991 cm3 diesel unit generating 190 bhp. The basic version of the four-cylinder engine is the common rail unit with four-valve technology and variable turbine blade geometry currently powering the Chevrolet Captiva and due to go into the Epica from spring 2007. The increase in performance was achieved by raising the turbo boost pressure.

The WTCC Ultra has a sophisticated independent wheel suspension on McPherson struts on both axles. The lower wheel control at the front is taken care of by an A-frame arm, while at the back, two additional wishbones and one trailing arm link the wheels precisely to the chassis.

To keep the unladen weight as low as possible, the designers of the WTCC Ultra have made plenty of use of modern lightweight materials. The body parts are finished in “Stealth Blue”, a further development of the familiar Chevrolet blue, and are made of a glass fiber and carbon-fiber laminate. The flat underbody of the fully functioning touring concept car, which also graphically divides up the vehicle because of its dark color, and the front and rear spoilers are made of a plain weave carbon-fiber composite. The window frames and the air inlet grilles at the front are finished in semi gloss dark grey. They make an attractive contrast with the glossy silver-painted wheels and the polished aluminum door handles, number plate and centrally positioned tailpipes.

Another aerodynamic feature apart from the flat underbody and the spoilers is a rear dif-fuser to create additional downforce.

“Our general aim was to bring the sporty nature of the exterior design inside,” explains Breony Crittenden the designer in Australia responsible for leading the color and materials design. “We opted for raw dark surfaces by using, for example, unpolished metal or matte carbon-fiber inserts. By doing this, we kept a little secretive about the material, and called this design principle the “stealth theme”. But Batman fans will get their money’s worth in the WTCC Ultra, too: The upper part of the dash is finished in rubberised paint – and was inspired by the suits in the film “Batman returns”. Overall, the Ultra’s interior consists of materials and textures selected for their performance characteristics creating an aesthetic of functional beauty.

For weight distribution, the driver is situated as far back and as low as possible. All the control surfaces of the car are designed to be exactly where the driver requires, from the steering wheel and sequential gear selector, to the adjustable pedalbox and the console-mounted electrical switches. The inner door releases in the front doors are also situated further back than usual to be in reach of the driver. The steering wheel is similarly rear-ward of normal, and houses all the technical information readouts for the driver in two screens. The main circular screen displays the gear selection and tachometer, as well as oil and water temperatures, fuel and oil levels, and brake bias. Four push buttons on the wheel control the functions of the main screen. The second screen situated in the top of the ergonomically designed wheel rim displays the tachometer as a graphical display, to aid the accurate timing of gear selection. The surface treatment around the circular screen emulates the wheel arch design on the exterior.

The seat also borrows aspects of the exterior, comprising complex interwoven surfaces that echo the broken lines of the exterior. The striking form of the frame and the upholstery is designed to support and protect the driver, and is made from carbon-fiber composites with self-skinning polyurethane cushions. Aggressive sculpting of the frame and cushions provides ergonomic support of the driver to ensure a comfortable driving position. The surface of both the cushions is broken up by an asymmetrical pattern of raised dots, designed to give added grip to the driver. The seat provides head and neck protection via wings that project either side of the head support, and a six-point racing harness is employed to keep the driver in position. The love of detail is also evidenced by the embossed Chevrolet insignia on this harness belt. Nowhere on the car are there any printed logos or letters – everything is embossed, milled or cast.

2006 Chevrolet WTCC Ultra Concept
2006 Chevrolet WTCC Ultra Concept
Specifications
Engine
Type: Turbodiesel Inline-4
Displacement cu in (cc): 122 (1991)
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 190(142) / n.a.
Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: n.a.
Redline at RPM: n.a.
Brakes & Tires
Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/disc
Tires F-R: n.a.
Driveline: Front Wheel Drive
Exterior Dimensions & Weight
Length × Width × Height in: 168.6 × 74.3 × 61.2
Weight lb (kg): n.a.
Performance
Acceleration 0-60 mph s: n.a.
Top Speed mph (km/h): n.a.
Fuel Economy EPA city/highway mpg (l/100 km): n.a.

Chevrolet Cobalt Street Car.

The Chevrolet Cobalt sedan is available in four trim levels: LS, LT, LTZ and SS. The Cobalt coupe is available in four as well: LS, LT, SS and the performance-oriented SS Supercharged. The LS model is the price leader for both body styles, equipped with a modest amount of standard features that includes filtered air conditioning, a CD player and a tilt steering wheel. More amenities, including power accessories, cruise control, keyless entry, OnStar, XM radio, leather upholstery and an upgraded Pioneer stereo are featured on the LT, LTZ and SS trims.

Even when equipped with the base 2.2-liter, 145-horsepower four-cylinder engine, the Cobalt can get out of its own way just fine, returning good fuel economy to boot. SS models get a zestier 2.4-liter four-cylinder that delivers 171 hp while exacting little or no penalty in fuel economy. Fun-seekers will likely be drawn to the extroverted 205-hp Cobalt SS Supercharged that, true to its name, has a supercharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder; it comes only with a five-speed manual transmission. A four-speed automatic is optional on all others, and it comes standard on the LTZ.

In terms of safety, the Chevy Cobalt is a mixed bag: In contrast to some cars in this class, rear disc brakes and ABS are only optional on lower trim levels, as are seat-mounted side airbags and side curtain airbags. When equipped with the side bags, the Cobalt has scored quite well in crash tests.

Small Chevrolet cars have rarely been known for the quality of their interiors, and the Cobalt doesn’t do much to change this. In editorial reviews, this compact car has earned negative commentary in regard to its hard plastics, inconsistent build quality and limited storage. On the positive side, the Cobalt’s interior is nicely insulated from road and engine noise, and the front seats should be very comfortable for the majority of drivers and passengers.

The Chevrolet Cobalt debuted for the 2005 model year. As such, it is only now starting to appear with frequency as a used vehicle. The Cobalt effectively replaced the long-running Chevy Cavalier, which was both smaller and of much poorer quality. The Cobalt’s categorical step up in quality and content warranted the name change, and portends good things to come from General Motors.

Chevrolet “manster” Truck Chicago Auto Show 2006

Corvette Racing to Celebrate Homecoming in Ohio

Conceived on the Corvette assembly line in Bowling Green, Ky., and raised at Corvette Racing’s headquarters in suburban Detroit, the twin Compuware Corvette C6.R race cars are local favorites at the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course. Going into this weekend’s seventh round of the 12-race American Le Mans Series, Chevy’s factory road racing team has posted five straight victories on the scenic 2.25-mile Mid-Ohio circuit.

Ron Fellows and Johnny O’Connell teamed up to score four consecutive wins at Mid-Ohio before finishing as runners-up in 2006 to Oliver Gavin and Olivier Beretta. This year Jan Magnussen is partnered with O’Connell in the No. 3 Compuware Corvette C6.R.
more »
Gavin and Beretta Celebrate GT1 Victory in Lime Rock ALMS

Lime Rock Podium While millions of Americans celebrated the nation’s birthday with fireworks and amusement park rides, Corvette Racing spent the weekend after the Fourth of July on the roller coaster 1.54-mile Lime Rock Park circuit. Oliver Gavin and Olivier Beretta avoided the heavy holiday traffic on the congested road course and scored a .384-second victory in their No. 4 Compuware Corvette C6.R over Johnny O’Connell and Jan Magnussen in the No. 3 Compuware Corvette C6.R.

American Le Mans Northeast Grand Prix GT1 Results
Pos./Drivers/Car/Laps
1. Gavin/Beretta, Chevrolet Corvette C6.R, 165
2. O’Connell/Magnussen, Chevrolet Corvette C6.R, 165
Beretta Takes GT1 Pole in Lime Rock ALMS by .013 Second

The roar of Chevy thunder at Lime Rock Park heralded the arrival of a summer storm that washed out qualifying for Saturday’s American Le Mans Northeast Grand Prix. Corvette Racing’s twin Compuware Corvette C6.Rs were separated by 13 thousandths of a second in this morning’s practice session, and that razor-thin margin determined the GT1 starting grid after race officials cancelled the scheduled 20-minute qualifying session.
more »

American Le Mans Northeast Grand Prix GT1 Qualifying:
Pos./Drivers/Car/Time/Speed
1. Gavin/Beretta, Chevrolet Corvette C6.R, 51.411/107.837 mph
2. O’Connell/Magnussen, Chevrolet Corvette C6.R, 51.424/107.810 mph
Corvette Racing Aims for GT1 Victory Record at Lime Rock

The troops have returned home, the race cars have been rebuilt and refurbished, and now the long march to the end of the season is underway. After finishing second in the 15-strong field of GT1 cars at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, Corvette Racing will have the top production sports car class to itself at the American Le Mans Northeast Grand Prix at Lime Rock Park on July 7.

GT1 Championship Standings (unofficial after 6 of 12 events)
1. Chevrolet 126
2. Aston Martin 19

Driver/Points
1. Oliver Gavin 122
Olivier Beretta 122
3. Jan Magnussen 90
Johnny O’Connell 90
5. Max Papis 26
6. Ron Fellows 22
7. Antonio Garcia 19
Liz Halliday 19
Darren Turner 19
2007 Corvette Racing Schedule
DATE VENUE TV Satellite
Radio

March 17
Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring
Sebring, FL
March 31
Acura Sports Car Challenge of St. Petersburg
St. Petersburg, FL
April 14
Grand Prix of Long Beach
Long Beach, CA
April 21
Lone Star Grand Prix
Houston, TX
May 19
Utah Grand Prix
Salt Lake City, UT
June 16-17
24 Heures du Mans
Le Mans, France
July 7
American Le Mans Northeast Grand Prix
Lakeville, CT
July 21
Acura Sports Car Challenge of Mid-Ohio
Lexington, OH
August 11
Generac 500 at Road America
Elkhart Lake, WI

August 26
Grand Prix of Mosport
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
September 1
Detroit Belle Isle Grand Prix
Detroit, MI
October 6
Petit Le Mans
Braselton, GA
October 20
Monterey Sports Car Championships
Salinas, CA

Corvette Racing Fast Facts

Team: Corvette Racing

Owner: General Motors, Detroit, Mich.

Race Cars: Corvette C6.R (Corvette 6th generation, Racing)
Drivers:

* No. 3 Corvette C6.R: Johnny O’Connell, Jan Magnussen (plus Ron Fellows for Sebring, Le Mans and Petit Le Mans)
* No. 4 Corvette C6.R: Oliver Gavin, Olivier Beretta (plus Max Papis for Sebring, Le Mans and Petit Le Mans)

Team Personnel:

* Director, GM Racing: Mark Kent
* GM Racing Road Racing Group Manager: Steve Wesoloski
* Corvette Racing Program Manager: Doug Fehan
* Team Manager: Gary Pratt
* Engine Manager: Roger Allen
* Crew Chief, No. 3: Dan Binks
* Crew Chief, No. 4: Ray Gongla

Primary Sponsor: Compuware

Associate Sponsors: Mobil1, XM Satellite Radio, UAW-GM, Motorola, Genuine Corvette Accessories, Bose, Motorola, PRS Guitars, BBS
Corvette Racing Record
* Race wins: 51 (through 2006)
* 1-2 finishes: 34 (through 2006)
* ALMS manufacturers championships: six (2001-2006)
* ALMS team championships: six (2001-2006)
* ALMS drivers championships: five (2002-2006)
* 24 Hours of Le Mans class wins: five (2001-02, 2004-06)
* Sebring 12-hour class wins: four (2002-04, 2006)
* Petit Le Mans class wins: five (2000-02, 2004-05)
* American Le Mans Series records: Most race wins by entrant (45); most 1-2 finishes (29); longest winning streak in GT1 (12, 2005-06); most poles in GT1 Most race wins by entrant (45); most 1-2 finishes (29); longest winning streak in GT1 (12, 2005-06); most poles in GT1
* ALMS From the Fans awards: Gary Claudio, Corvette marketing manager, 2002; Doug Fehan, Corvette Racing program manager, 2004
* ALMS Most Popular Driver awards: Ron Fellows, 2004-06
* Special awards: Corvette C6.R named “North American Car of the Year” by dailysportscar.com (February 2006); Corvette LS7.R engine named “Global Motorsport Engine of the Year” at the Professional Motorsport World Expo (November 2006)
* First race: Daytona 24-hour, Feb. 5, 1999
* First GTS win: Texas Motor Speedway, Sept. 2, 2000, drivers Ron Fellows and Andy Pilgrim
* First overall win: Daytona 24-hour, Feb. 3, 2001; Fellows/Kneifel/Freon/O’Connell
* First 1-2 finish: Daytona 24-hour, Feb. 3, 2001 (1st: Fellows/Kneifel/Freon/O’Connell; 2nd: Pilgrim/Earnhardt/Earnhardt Jr./ Collins)
* First Le Mans GTS win: 2001 (Fellows/O’Connell/Pruett)
* First ALMS drivers championship: Fellows, 2002
* First ALMS manufacturers championship: 2001
* First undefeated season: 2004 (9 ALMS races and 24 Hours of Le Mans)
* Consecutive class wins at 12 Hours of Sebring: 3 (2001-03)

Corvette Racing Notes

* The C6.R is the most technically advanced sports car ever developed by GM, combining lessons learned in the dominant Corvette C5-R with the advanced technology of the sixth-generation Corvette and Corvette Z06 production models. In February 2006, the Corvette C6.R race car was named the “North American Car of the Year” over marques such as Audi, Aston Martin and Maserati by dailysportscar.com, a noted online magazine that provides in-depth coverage of sports car and GT series worldwide.
* 2007 marks Corvette’s 51st year in international road racing. John Fitch and Walt Hansgen drove a Corvette to a ninth-place finish overall and a Class B victory at the 12 Hours of Sebring in 1956, the first step onto the world stage that established Chevy’s sports car as a contender in top-level competition.
* The rulebook requires close adherence to production specifications, and the Corvette C6.R’s roots reach to the Corvette assembly plant in Bowling Green, Ky. The same hydroformed frame rails used in production Corvette coupes and convertibles provide the foundation for the racing version.
* Corvette Racing’s C6.R race cars are powered by race-prepared LS7.R small-block V-8 engines. In November 2006, Corvette Racing’s LS7.R small-block V-8 was honored as the “Global Motorsport Engine of the Year” at the inaugural Professional Motorsport World Expo in Cologne, Germany. The award was voted by an expert panel made up of 50 key race engine engineers representing the spectrum of motorsports.
* The GM small-block V-8 is America’s most popular and most successful production-based racing engine. Total production of GM small-block-based engines is approaching 90 million units. This motor has powered more winning race cars and won more championships than any other engine in American motorsports.

It’s Friday afternoon, our appointment with the Chevrolet Camaro concept car is at hand, and the gray clouds hanging over Milford, Michigan, don’t look like they’re going to disappear anytime soon. As we head east on I-96 toward the Milford exit, a few splatters of rain hit our windshield. General Motors operatives have already warned us that if the ground is wet, the handbuilt prototype won’t be allowed out onto the proving ground’s Black Lake or the south loop—the most action we’ll be granted is to roll the car around under a porte cochere attached to a testing garage.

All of our worries are for naught. The clouds remain, but they’ve shut off their rain faucets and the testing tarmac is dry. My GM escort, designer Christos Roustemis, motions for me to get in the car, with a warning to shut the driver’s door behind me slowly and deliberately. Door closed, I’m sitting in a tall bucket seat with limited adjustments, so I’m perched a bit too high. The seat-mounted belts are not usable. There are no panes of glass in the doors or in the rear quarters, so we’ve got wide, uninterrupted sightlines to both sides.

Roustemis gives me the go-ahead to start the car. I depress the clutch and hit the rudimentary rocker switch on the dash. The concept’s 400-hp, 6.0-liter LS2 Corvette V-8 rumbles to life, I palm the six-speed manual’s huge, billet-aluminum gearshifter knob into first gear, and we’re off. But not like a rocket, that’s for sure. Although this Camaro feels just about as solid as any last-generation F-body car from the 1990s, it’s limited to 40 mph and fairly low revs. (Neither the speedo nor the tach actually works.) We never get beyond third gear. What can we tell you about the way a production Camaro would actually drive? Not a helluva lot.

GM vice chairman Bob Lutz has indicated that, in order for a viable business case to be made for the Camaro, projected annual sales would have to break the six-figure barrier. You don’t have to get the concept car to 60 mph in five seconds or blast into triple digits to know that there ought to be at least a hundred thousand people out there who would want to buy this car if it ever reaches showrooms. After all, one of the bright spots in Ford’s recent gloom has been the Mustang, which sold some 160,000 copies last year, so GM ought to be able to turn two-thirds that many Camaros. This car looks awesome, it will be available with a V-8 driving the rear wheels, and it will be affordable. Most important, unlike so many vehicles in GM’s stable, it’s a car that commands people’s attention. Why else would dozens of automotive journalists from North and South America and Europe have clamored for the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a fragile Camaro prototype that was so emasculated, you couldn’t even hope to burn rubber?

Clearly, it’s too early for anybody to pronounce what a factory Camaro will be like to drive, although some quarters have attempted to do so. We can tell you, though, that sitting in the Camaro’s cabin while the vehicle is in motion just feels right. There’s more than a whiff of retro design in here, but the overall ambience hits all the high notes. Of course, the copious use of billet aluminum for the gearshifter, the center console, the pedals, and the other trim is bound to help any car’s interior; it’s too bad none of it will ever see a showroom. The big sweeps of orange trim on the dash and the door panels, though, are production feasible. “We were going for an anodized [aluminum] look,” says Roustemis. “The orange material is painted Plexiglas, which gives more depth to the color.” The orange trim is mirrored in the secondary gauges in the center console, which thrusts under the instrument panel like a spear, just like the original Camaro’s did.

The wide, short CinemaScope windshield frames the view over the long, broad hood in a way that most of today’s sharply sloped windshields do not. What you see immediately in front of you, of course, is familiar to anyone who’s ever been in a first-generation Camaro. There’s the deep-dish steering wheel, although its spokes are much thicker than the original’s. Beyond the wheel, the prominent twin gauge cluster reaching deep into the dash also harks back to 1969. It was drawn at GM’s California studios by a Frenchman, Julien Montousse, who evolved the surrounding chrome rectangles into strong architectural elements. In a bit of Gallic-influenced hyperbole, he says that “the cluster is the window to the soul of the Camaro.” Mais bien sûr, Julien.

In our March issue, we detailed the circuitous road the Camaro concept followed through GM’s design studios before it landed like a meteorite on the Chevy stand at this year’s Detroit auto show. We also described the engineering and financial hurdles that the Camaro must leap before it can roll off an assembly line. The concept car was cobbled together on a modified Cadillac CTS/STS platform, but a production Camaro likely would ride on a version of the rear-wheel-drive Zeta platform from GM’s Down Under division, Holden. Will the Camaro have a live rear axle, like the Mustang, or be indepen-dently suspended? It will all come down to money. A V-6-powered model priced in the low $20,000s is crucial in order for the car to meet volume targets and to compete with the Mustang. GM has plenty of six- and eight-cylinder engines in its stable. A V-8 would need to be cost-effective and more powerful than the Mustang’s 300-hp unit, yet not rub up against the 400-hp Corvette.

In the same way that the Mustang has been a megawatt star for Ford, the Camaro could be one for GM, which could certainly use such a vehicle right now. A modern, relevant Camaro could ride the current muscle car wave, which shows no sign of abating. More important, it could serve as an image flagship for a resurgent Chevy brand in a way that the more expensive Corvette cannot.

There are lots of questions to be answered about the Camaro, but the main one for GM to concern itself with is how, not if, it will take the car to the masses. Only American automakers have the heritage to build pony cars, and pony cars are one of the best ways for Detroit to reconnect with an indifferent public. General Motors has to build the Camaro, because Toyota and Hyundai and BMW can’t.

In 1955, Chevrolet’s full-size model received new styling that earned it the “Hot One” designation by enthusiasts. Unlike Ford and Plymouth, Chevrolet’s styling was considered crisp and clean. Bel Airs came with features found on cars in the lower models ranges plus interior carpet, chrome headliner bands on hardtops, chrome spears on front fenders, chrome window moldings, and full wheel covers. Models were further distinguished by the Bel Air name script in gold lettering.

The ‘55, ‘57, and especially ‘56 Bel Airs are among the most recognizable American cars of all time; well-maintained examples (especially coupes and convertibles) are highly sought after by enthusiasts. Roomy, fuel-efficient, and with tastefully restrained use of tail fins and chrome, they are seen by many as vastly superior to the oversized and overdecorated full-size models that would roll out of Detroit for the next 20 years.

1957 Chevrolet Bel Air 2-door hard top

From 1955–57, production of the two-door Nomad station wagon was assigned to the Bel Air series, although its body and trim were unique to that model. Prior to becoming a regular production model, the Nomad first appeared as a Corvette-based concept vehicle in 1954. Chevrolet has since unveiled two concept cars bearing the Nomad name, most recently in 1999.

For 1958, Chevrolet models were redesigned to be broader, longer and heavier than their 1957 predecessors. The Impala now became the premium Chevrolet, followed by the mid-range Bel Air. For the budget conscious, the Biscayne, (formerly the 210) and the Delray (formerly the 150) completed this model years family oriented and utility offerings. Chevrolet’s design for the year fared better than its other GM brethren, and lacked the overabundance of chrome found on Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs. Complementing Chevrolet’s front design was a broad grille and quad headlights; the tail received a fan-shaped alcove on both side panels, which housed dual tail lights.

The Bel Air also gained a halo model in 1958, the Impala, available only as a hardtop coupe and convertible in its introductory year. Impala styling followed the basic lines of the other Chevrolet models but received special styling cues including a different roof line, a vent above the rear window, unique side trim, and triple tail lights housed in slightly broader alcoves.

Despite being a recession year, consumers made Chevrolet the No. 1 make of automobile (beating Ford, which held the title in 1957) and the Bel Air was at the core of Chevrolet’s popularity. With its wide variety of body styles and models, Bel Airs could be optioned with almost every conceivable luxury within the Chevrolet line. The Nomad station wagon name also reappeared in 1958 when the vehicle bowed as the premium four-door Chevrolet station wagon, lacking the unique styling of the 1955-57 Nomads. Most Chevrolet station wagon models had two tail lights housed in abbreviated alcoves, which were made smaller to accommodate the rear gate. An exception was the Yeoman.

In 1959, Chevrolet elevated the Impala to top-line status, making the Bel Air the mid-level model. The Biscayne replaced the discontinued Delray as the least expensive full-size Chevrolet model.

From 1960, Bel Airs and Biscaynes could easily be identified by their use of two taillights per side; the Impalas had three taillights per side. Also, the Bel Air had more interior and exterior brightwork than the Biscayne. Many of the same options and accessories that were available on the Impala were also available on the Bel Air.

By the late 1960s (with the introduction of the Caprice), the Bel Air and its Biscayne stablemate were primarily marketed to automotive fleet customers. However, the Bel Air remained available to private customers who sought a basic, no-frills full-sized car that was slightly better trimmed than the low-line Biscayne.

A six-cylinder engine and three-speed manual transmission remained standard equipment through the 1973 model year; the automatic transmission had been the sole transmission choice on V-8-powered Bel Airs since the spring of 1971. Only about 1,400 cars were built with the inline six in 1973, and the engine and the outdated stick shift transmission were shelved by the end of the model year. All Bel Airs built in 1974 and 1975 listed a 350 two-barrel V-8 engine and Turbo-Hydramatic transmission as standard.

When the Biscayne was discontinued after 1972, the Bel Air was demoted to the low-level model. The last Bel Airs for the United States were manufactured for 1975.

Chevrolet’s Canadian affiliate continued the Bel Air as its lowest-priced full-size car through the 1981 model year.

2002 Bel Air concept car (GM press kit photo)

In 2002, a concept Bel Air convertible was shown at the North American International Auto Show. It featured many styling and design cues from the legendary 1955–57 models, and had tail lights very similar to the Ford Thunderbird. So far, General Motors has shown no interest in producing such a car.

The T200 is sold as Chevrolet Aveo in Indonesia and Philippines (5-door only), as well as South Africa and China (5-door and 4-door). The T250 sedan is sold as Chevrolet Lova in China. The T250 was launched in India in 2006 as Chevrolet Aveo along with the slogan “The Indian Revolution”, clearly referencing Chevrolet’s American catchphrase “The American Revolution”. The T200 hatchback was launched in India in December 2006 featuring a 1.2 liter petrol engine. The T200 hatchback is called the Aveo U-VA in India.

A 1.4LT sedan version that seems whose specs seem to be a combination of that of the LS and LT is sold in the Philippines. This version already comes with foglamps, a different AM/FM radio with CD player, 14-inch alloy rims and a 14-inch blackwall for the spare, and theft-deterrent system. It has no side airbags, only comes in the charcoal cloth interior, no sunglass holder, only has 4 speakers, no aux audio input jack, and headrests don’t tilt.

Friends Owned Crash Corvette

Production of the C5 Corvette began in 1997 and ended with the 2004 model year. The C5 was a major change from the long-running C4. The transmission was moved to the rear of the car to form an integrated rear-mounted transaxle assembly and was connected to the engine by a driveshaft. Gone were most of the squeaks and rattles of the C4. The new C5 was judged by the automotive press as improved in nearly every area over the previous Corvette design.

Also introduced with the C5 was GM’s new LS1 small block. This third-generation small block was a completely new design, including a distributor-less ignition and a new cylinder firing order. It was initially rated at 345 horsepower (257 kW) and 350 ft·lbf (470 N·m) torque, but was increased to 350 horsepower (260 kW) in 2001.

For its first year, the C5 was available only as a coupe, even though the new platform was designed from the ground up to be a convertible. The convertible returned to the lineup in 1998, followed by the predecessor to the Z06, the fixed-roof coupe (FRC), in 1999.

The Corvette’s 50th Anniversary was celebrated June 20-21, 2003, in Nashville, Tennessee. The venue provided a bonanza of flawlessly restored Corvettes. Also, a worldwide caravan of over 10,000 Corvettes gathered at the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, KY. with every model year of the Corvette along with engineering and restoration seminars. Participants were also invited to visit the factory located across from the museum, with special tours not provided to the general public. The anniversary also brought some Chevrolet Concept Vehicles into focus including the approved-for-production Chevrolet SSR. Also on hand were several Corvette race cars, including the Corvette SS built by Zora Arkus-Duntov and the C5-R that won its class at Le Mans. Among the many displays were examples of the 2003 50th Anniversary Edition as well as a few 2004 “Commemorative Edition” and Indy Pace Car Corvettes.

Recently, the factory has expanded to build the Cadillac XLR roadster, which shares its platform with the sixth-generation Corvette. Bowling Green is also home to the Corvette Museum, which celebrates this American automotive icon by displaying in chronological order the various regular production models as well as some unique one-off versions created by Chevrolet. Bowling Green is also the home of the National Corvette Homecoming, a large annual gathering of Corvettes and their owners.

The building in Flint in which the first cars were assembled was spun off with GM’s Delphi Electronics division and later donated to GMI/Kettering University in the late 1990s. The building has since been remodeled and is now the C.S. Mott Engineering and Science Center, housing the Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry programs. In the garage housing the school’s Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) club is a plaque commemorating it as the place where the first Corvette was built.

A successor to the FRC C5 made its debut in 2001 as the Z06, a nod to the high performance Z06 version of the C2 Corvette of the 1960s. The Z06 models replace the FRC hardtop (1999-2000) models as the highest performance C5 Corvette. Instead of a heavier double-overhead cam engine like the ZR-1, the Z06 used an LS6, a high-output version of the standard LS1 Corvette engine producing 385 hp (287 kW). Although the Z06’s total power output was less than that of the last ZR-1’s, the Z06 was lighter and therefore quicker than the ZR-1. Despite these specifications, the ZR-1 still had a higher top speed, thus maintaining its “King of the Hill” status.

As with the ZR-1, Chevrolet found that added power output did the Z06 little good without platform modifications to bring the rest of the car up to par. A hardtop body, upgraded suspension, larger wheels and tires, a new six-speed manual transmission, along with improved gearing and functional brake cooling ducts, all became part of the total package. The Z06 is 38 lb (17.3 kg) lighter than the previous hardtop C5 thanks to a titanium exhaust (from the catalytic converter back), thinner glass, lighter wheels, and a lighter battery. From 2002 onward, the Z06 produced 405 hp (302 kW) thanks to minor engine modifications including a more aggressive camshaft profile, lightweight sodium filled exhaust valves, stiffer valve springs, and deletion of the precats. Many dynamometer test have proven that Chevrolet underrated the engine by 20 hp (15 kW) giving it a total of 425 hp.[5]

The 2002 Z06 also received revised rear shock valving and steel links to replace plastic ones of the 2001 model. An Electron blue color replaced Speedway white. The HUD became standard, and the previous forged wheels were replaced by lighter spun cast ones. The fender Z06 badges bear “405 hp” on them. The 2003 models received special silver 50th anniversary badges and revised headliner. Later 2003 models received a more durable steel shift fork instead of aluminum.

GM claimed that 405 hp (302 kW) versions of the Z06 could make the 0-60 run in 3.9 seconds and through the quarter mile in 12.4 seconds. In the hands of experienced drivers the 2002-2004 Z06 has made 11 second passes.[5] The current quarter mile record is 11.7. The car’s top speed of 176 mph (283 km/h) was achieved in 5th gear at 6,500 rpm(redline), as 6th gear was an overdrive/economy gear. It proved to be a well rounded track vehicle as well, with the ability to do more than simply accelerate. Thanks in part to its upgraded suspension system, the Z06 is capable of holding its own against contemporary versions of the Dodge Viper, Ford Mustang Cobra R, and even the Porsche 911 around a road track.

The 2004 Z06 Commemorative Edition came with a carbon fiber hood which saved some weight and also received polished aluminum wheels. In addition it was equipped with a Nürburgring-tested suspension tuning to improve handling, along with an exclusive Le Mans blue color.