Corvette Z06 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,357 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
for the basis for the Z06? The tapes, books and magazines say it is for its structural rigidity. However, some guy (know it all, that doesn't own a Z) posted on another forum (I will leave it nameless for now) that all Corvettes are structurally the same and they chose the FRC because GM has tons of bucks in the tooling and they wanted to justify it.

Please lend me your info and opinions. Inquiring minds want to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,491 Posts
The FRC's

..are structually a stiffer platform and lighter. The Verts frame is stiffened but heavier.

We can go back to the C4 to see why. Callaway and others started with vert frames to build racing coupes! They found it was easier than taking a coupe frame and welding all the extra gussetting to make it stiffer.

The coupe does have one advantage in less aerodynamic drag due to the rear window. Thats why the C5R is based on the stiff and light FRC but then a lexan coupe rear window is added for aerodynamics, along with a few other subtle modifications (sic).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
I'll believe the rags with all of their connections to and in the industry and even the General before I'll believe "some guy" Joe sh&t the rag man:roll: :roll: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,332 Posts
Performin,

First of all IMHO, i believe its the structure as we know only the frc top is integral. Costs in tooling probally plays in a great deal also. Unnamed person we all know who................

:lol: :lol: :lol: :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,357 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Here is what this guy claims.

"The main reason they use this body type is because G.M. spent a ton of $$$ on the tooling to built these coupe's and they were not selling for squat!!!So to get the use of the tooling they mandated that all Z-06's would be coupes.
As far as being more rigid, they are all exactly the same. the c5 was designed as a conv't first, to adress the rigidity of the platform. "

I replied with: I stand corrected. I guess I shouldn't believe the VHS tapes and technical manuals I got with my car. Oh well, GM just lies sometimes.

Notice how diplomatic and unaggressive I can be. hahhaa

He then replies with: "Yea, they are playing some games with corvette info these days. I think it has to do with trying to one-up the viper within a year or two.
I know that all of the design guys at work don't let on too much. "

I love it.
 

·
Z06 Maniac!!
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
Once in a great while, a question is asked for which I have the definitive answer. Why the FRC for the Z06? Easy! Verts are to feminine. Guys just don't look right driving them. ;) Now for the so-called Coupes, jeez, I thought hatchbacks went out with the Pinto and Vega. :eek: Too damn ugly imho. So there you have it, make a high performance girl car, a high performance ugly hatchback, or make a high perfomance, too sweet FRC into the a nasty, Porsche spanking race car. Too easy. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,411 Posts
Let's think about this.

If GM made the Z06 option available on all models with a premium cost, the sales would far outweigh any tooling costs. If it was all about $$, then they would have scrapped the hardtop earlier and made more expensive Z packages.....The resulting sales would have been a draw IMHO.

Think of the engineering and planning that goes into the smallest detail like raising the rev limit and changing the valve springs. Is this REALLY necessary? Why would they not just limit it to 6400 and save the $$. Increasing clutch area by 9%? To them (and us) that's important.

To say that the frame is xx% stiffer than a normal coupe is probably a monumental item when speaking to a Vette engineer.

All too often, people look at a large company with an air of skepticism, like they are the "man" trying to cheat everyones grandmother out of a dollar. Maybe they are, but I for one am glad that GM decided that the only body engineered for a race ready configuration was the hardtop. What about those 99 hardtop Z06 mules. Can anyone explain that? I'll take a guess. They could not get it ready in time. Just like the improvements for 02, they simply did not have the engineering done in time for 01 production. I don't think they leak 5 hp a year from some super secret 600HP monster Gen III in a lab. These are legitimate improvements and an evolution of a high tech engine platform IMHO.
[end rambling]

JC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,024 Posts
I remember reading some where back in 96 or 97 that GM was coming out with a low end no frill Vette with roll up windows and cloth int. It was supposed to replace the Camaro and be in the $30000.00 range. The tooling and design work was already done.
IMHO this was the FRC. We all know that this low end Vette never happened. The FRC was a little below the Coupe but not by much. Although I did then and still do think the FRC is a great car, it did not do the #s it was supposed to in sales. The money was already spent on tooling the car so GM decided to juice it up and try again with the Z06.

The rest is HISTORY.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Who are you guys?

The 2002 Z06 is a REAL sports car.
I think it's the first STOCK Corvette that can be called a REAL sports car.

A cabriolet is for joy riding with your wife to the county fair or sending your daughter to college in. And they are a pain in the butt for the very few times you ever put the top down. If you have ever owned a cab, you would know what a pain in the butt they are and how rare the top actually comes down.

The hatchback or coupe is a joke.
It's for people that really needed a SUV or just suffer from bad taste.

If you want to perform with the big dogs (horses, snakes, and Germans) you don't come to the fight wearing a diamond studded collar. Only choke chains allowed in this ring.

Is this a Z06 site or do some of you guys wear house dresses?

Please read both the humor and the truth.
:lol: :mad:

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
Structural Rigidity as follows:

Vert: 20 Hertz

Coupe: 22 Hertz

FRC: 24 Hertz

End of story. JC hit the nail on the head :D

:cheers:
Barrie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
Hey Norm!!!!

Some people go through life thinking that if they say something with enough authority then it must be true. We, in the biz, refer to these people as morons.:lol: :cheers: :lol:

I was looking over there and saw that particular post. Almost decided to reply then thought... Nah... Look at what he's saying... Look at where he is... Nah!!!:p

Guy probably needs to read ACAR. Then he needs to probably talk to people involved.

From what I can gather the Z06 was planned as early as 99 with mules completed. That was the same year they brought out the vanilla FRC (If there is, in fact, such a thing as a vanilla FRC). It stands to reason that, as stated previously, the engineering just wasn't ready ... Or perhaps, if it had gone better we would have been "blessed" with the vert, hatchback, FRC, AND the Z06?

Having owned a vert, and road tested the coupe, my personal taste runs to the FRC. Since they made only 6000 of them, my next logical new car purchase will be a Z06.

Take care Bud!

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,357 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks to all of you for humoring me. This guy posted this on the Syclone and Typhoon forum and I am not sure he knows what he is talking about. I just posted it here for amusement. I knew that the structural rigidity was the reason they used this platform. Just thought it was funny how someone else, who doesn't even own a Z, can know so much as to disagree with someone that has studied the car in some depth.

Oh to be young and ignorant. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
I believe there is plenty written about the fact that the FRC or (Billy Bob - Its project name) was originally conceived as the low buck stripper Corvette. It was going to be the roll up window, cloth interior, boy racer car.

There has also been alot of print about the fact that GM had to use the FRC because of weight to meet the LEV specs with the LS6. That is also why it has been stated that the LS6 will not be offered in the coupes or verts.

The story about the weight may be a load of hooey, but that has always been the official story.

As a side note on the LS1, and LS! development. GM had one of their engineering mules here in Houston in 93/94. It had the GENIII (LS1) engine in it, and it was on loan to Johnny Klevenhagen (the then Sherriff of Harris County). Harris County had ALOT of Camaro interceptors at that time. In addition Klevenhagen had connections at GM, and was about to go into partners on a Chevrolet Dealership. I saw this car at HRP during one of the Nationals. In talking to the folks, they claimed over 400HP then. They wouldn't open the hood, so I stuck my head under the car and got a look at what I could. They even made a pass in the car, but turned off the clocks so no one could see what the car would do. Now, if you look at the mods GM made from '01 to '02 they are numerous. GM also can't do mods like we can and get away with it. Just like the camshaft and valvetrain upgrades, they can't just throw those on and hope they work. They have to build motors, drive them, and then flog them till they come apart, and then find out why. They don't want folks like me coming in with a broke pile of parts under warranty going "This is a pile of garbage". Think about this, the LS6 is just the LS1 the way it should have been. It incorporated things that they found as time has gone on and needed fixing like improvements to cylinder heads and improvements in the windage control, etc... But come on, everyone knows GM always hold back a little. They don't put all their cards out on the table at once and they never have. Just look at any car Camaro/Firebird/Corvette. Why is it that the first few model years always have hideous wheels, tires, and ground effects. Look at the last 2 Generations of cars. Why couldn't an 82 Camaro look like an 89 IROC. Because it allowed GM to keep making small changes and keep attracting buyers. It is the same on the C5.

To meet the stricter LEV specs that is why the Z has some of the weight saving features, a few of which made it into other cars.

Lighter wheel/tire package
No Spare
Thinner glass
Ti Exhaust

Some of the other doo-dads from other cars like adjustible ride control, and tire pressure monitoring also added unneeded weight and were dropped.

As I remeber it the Corvette team was given $10 to spend for every pound they could shave off the car.

As for the frame on the C4. There was a very good article on one of the the Callaway race cars back in 1989 (I think). It used a regular c4 coupe, I know some folks added the convertible x brace which just bolts to the bottom of the car (but I don't know if this car did) But, what I do remember about the car was this, they ground all the spot welds on the car and seam welded every weld joint in the car along with putting a cage in the car. This is where they picked up the rigidity.

I could be 100% wrong on this, but it has always been my understanding that in the c4 and c5 lines the frames weren't different, but that there was possibly some additional bracing that was added on the assembly line (like of the c4 verts where they just bolted an x brace to the floor).

If someone has more definitve answers on some of these topics please jump in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,388 Posts
PerforminNorman said:
However, some guy (know it all, that doesn't own a Z) posted on another forum (I will leave it nameless for now) that all Corvettes are structurally the same and they chose the FRC because GM has tons of bucks in the tooling and they wanted to justify it.
First problem -- a Mr. Know It All who doesn't even own a Vette :roll: :roll:

:D :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
First problem -- a Mr. Know It All who doesn't even own a Vette

Well, I own a 2002 Z06 and know little about it. What I do know is that you don't need to "own" a Z06 to know everything about it. I would not discount a guys input just because he has not made the purchase. Research has value. Experience without research is beer talk. :guiness:

The weight/HP ratio, along with airflow, is the game. And the 2002 Z06 is making good numbers for a very low purchase price.

For every pound added to the car its real performance numbers drop big time.

If performance was the goal, they had to go with whatever weights less. Besides, the FRC Z06 is the better looking of them all.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
PerforminNorman said:
However, some guy (know it all, that doesn't own a Z) posted on another forum (I will leave it nameless for now) that all Corvettes are structurally the same and they chose the FRC because GM has tons of bucks in the tooling and they wanted to justify it.

Please lend me your info and opinions. Inquiring minds want to know.
All C5 Corvettes are not structurally the same. The differences.. ??the Convertible has no roof... a brace that the Coupe doesn't have runs behind the seat for a bit more torsional beef... the Coupe has no convertible bracing bar but has a "hoop" that is welded in, between the "b" pillars. The FRC has both the convertible and the targa's bracings installed, as well as a fixed roof bolted/bonded and a trunk where the Coupe has a hatch roof and hatch glass... The FRC is the most torsionally ridgid of the three.

I think you may find I know what I'm talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,406 Posts
Thanks for the kind vote of confidence, gentlemen.

I hope my boldness about having some authority on this isn't taken wrong.

Part of the amusement one can find on the internet is the abundance of "authoritative opinions".:puke: :roll:

Every so often there's something I know about. That's all I mean by my comment about the validity.

I'm amused that anyone would say there's no difference in the structure on ANY Hatched, or Topless, of Fixed roofed vehicle of the same year and platform.

It would tend to contradict the nature of vehicle structural dynamics and ignore some basic physics. As for "tooling".... most of the adhesives at BG are shot or applied by hand.... not hard to retool the differences in the building between the FRC and the other two...
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top