(UPDATED FROM 10/19/2022)
When I finally saw a new mid-engined Chevrolet Corvette Stingray in the wild a few years ago I wondered why General Motors called it a Corvette. The so-called C8 generation is simply too different from its predecessors.
Thus, I found it amusing to see how advertising for the C8 emphasized the nameplate’s legacy and paid homage to Zora Arkus-Duntov, who played a major role in the engineering of early Corvettes.
C8 is a stylistic disaster compared to original Sting Ray
As I took photographs, I found myself comparing the C8 with the original Corvette Sting Ray, which was produced from 1963-67. To my mind this generation represented peak Corvette, particularly in its styling.
Also see ‘2014-18 Corvette taillights: A veritable petting zoo on wheels?’
Although the C2 Corvette lacks modern greenhouse side curvature, it otherwise strikes me as one of the top designs of the post-war era — and perhaps the single best-styled car produced during William Mitchell’s tenure as head of General Motors’ design department.
In contrast, I find the C8 Corvette to be a stylistic disaster. Even if I ignore the car’s bloated size, its over-amped jet fighter sculptings have all of the sophistication of a 13-year-old’s sketches. This is most pronounced in the rear, where the iconic boat-tail shape of the C2’s fastback has been transformed into an overly busy assemblage of creases, folds and mutilations.
One of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the C2 was the ducktail rear end with dual-pod taillights. A modern car couldn’t get away with such a simple design, but the C8’s taillights are way too cluttered and gimmicky.
The C2 had fairly fat thighs for a mid-1960s car. The main reason for that was arguably side glass that was nearly or completely flat. C8 designers did not have to work around that limitation, but still gave their Corvette even fatter thighs.
Also see ‘1953-73 Chevrolet Corvette ads gingerly showed changing gender roles’
Fun fact: The 2022 Corvette is 6.5 inches wider than its 1965 predecessor but has only 1.1 inches greater hip room. Where did all that extra width go? Apparently into side scoops big enough to suck in a medium-sized dog.
C8’s extra bulk results in surprisingly little extra room
The C8 coupe does have .9 inches more headroom despite being a full inch lower than the C2. However, the mid-engined Corvette has a scant .1 inches extra leg room even though the car is 7 inches longer and the wheelbase is 9.2 inches longer than the original Sting Ray.
Of course, the C8 is a much safer and more civilized car, but the interior styling is just as overdone as the exterior.
C8 front end loaded up with cheap-looking black plastic
The original Sting Ray’s front end was arguably its least impressive feature. Although the veed fascia cleverly hid retracting headlights, it presumably was not as aerodynamic as the likes of the Studebaker Avanti.
Also see ‘Paolo Tumminelli: Car design has become a caricature of itself’
Meanwhile, the C8 Corvette’s front end has a fairly conventional sports-car shape whose main problem is that it suffers from an overabundance of cheap-looking black plastic.
All in all, I was decidedly unimpressed with the C8 Corvette. I say this recognizing that I am just another old fart whose design sensibilities are hopelessly stuck in the past.
So if I fall asleep here in my lawn chair, don’t bother waking me up until Detroit grows out of its current infatuation with wildly exaggerated styling that can even top the late-50s sci-fi look.
NOTES:
This story was first posted Oct. 19, 2022 and updated on Sept. 12, 2024. Specifications are from corvsport.com (2022), iSeeCars.com (2022) and Wikipedia (2022).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- corvsport.com; 2022. “1965 Corvette Performance & Specifications.” Accessed Oct. 19.
- iSeeCars.com; 2022. “2022 Chevrolet Corvette Dimensions.” Accessed Oct. 19.
- Wikipedia; 2022. “Chevrolet Corvette.” Page last modified Oct. 11.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Chevrolet Corvette (2021)
The first photo showing the front of the C-8 from above, suggests a combination of Marvel’s Iron Man’s and Red Ronin’s helmets!
I pretty much agree with everything you said, Steve. The C8 is not a pure design exercise, it’s a boy racer fantasy and I was quite underwhelmed when it debuted. The as the styling is more “follow the leader” than the C2 which was definitely “go your own way”. Some of might describe the C8’s various bulges, creases and aero add-ons as “junked up” but then again, some of us might think that the ’65 Sting Ray convertible is just about the most perfect car ever.
The above should read: “The styling is more…” and “Some of us might”… Sorry for the goofs, lol.
I’m an old man, and I love the looks of the C8 Corvette.
I find the C8’s overall styling cartoonishly busy as well, and the tail end of the car looks obese; yes, I’m fat shaming a car. The C2 and the E-Type sported the most svelte of automotive arses.
Driver safety has improved with the C8, but the car’s capabilities are beyond the skill level (and risk assessment?) of most buyers as was made horrifyingly clear in LasVegas last November.
First off, the C-8 Corvette is an interesting halo car for General (i.e. China) Motors, especially in these challenging times with the future of the internal combustion engine at a real crossroads. I was entering my teenage years when the 1963 Corvettes were introduced. That Chevrolet put the C2 Sting Ray on the road was to me, amazing. I had the opportunity to drive an early production metallic blue 1967 327-cu.-in./300-h.p./Powerglide convertible with the optional hardtop, my father in the passenger seat (He was an Allison’s Engineering (G.M.) project engineer.) around the block in Greenwood, Indiana at the Kelly Chevrolet dealership. Even in boulevard cruiser specs, it was like no other car I had ever driven up to that time. Of the Corvettes I have had the pleasure of driving, my favorite is the C-6, which to me looks just right. The C-7’s rear end lost me, and the C-8 seems as out of place on the road as do rear-engine Ferraris and Ford GTs. I have visited Bowling Green several times and toured the museum, but with most roads clogged with traffic (as least east of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers), why anybody would want to drive an over-powered supercar on public roads is beyond me. I have sat in a “base” 2020 C-8. I appreciate the engineering that went into the current Corvette, but somehow, my chronically sore back and I long for a very low-mileage 2008 Pontiac G-8 for my travels. Barring that, what about low-mileage 1965 Catalina 2+2 ? (Love the smell of new Morrokide, although I mourn for all the Morroks that gave up their hides !) One final thought, in my opinion, the finest BALANCED sports car I have ever driven on public roads of all types is the 1971 Mercedes-Benz 280SL with the Pagoda roof…nothing but class and refinement !
The 280 sl is a beautiful car. In modern traffic, it’s low and small. (Of course it doesn’t have modern AC.) It’s ok on the freeway up to around 60 mph. Then there’s a little too much vibration and the engine has to rev higher due to the gearing. It’s an early morning driver to upscale neighborhoods when the weather is just right. Now it’s getting too valuable to drive much at all.
I was rewatching Ed’s Auto Reviews’ trip to the GM Heritage Center, generally not open to the public. Many of the Corvette concept cars & prototypes were experimenting with mid-engine placement. Too bad the car has so much black plastic! I think it looks better in some colors than others. I suspect the car wouldn’t look much better if you wrapped the black in a body-colored wrap.
Indie Auto received the following comment:
“It’s not any different form the original Stingray than that was from the ‘62 and previous Corvettes. I think you need to say, more often, IMHO! rather than making pronouncements that sound like authoritative statements that all agree with.”
Indie Auto is a journal of opinion. To get a better sense of the method to our madness, go here.
In the context of opinion, I would say the C8 styling holds its own relative to its contemporary peers, especially the Italians, much like the C2 did in its day. The exaggerated proportions may not be for everybody, but then some think the Avanti is a standout design. I don’t think so and I could throw in a derisive comment but that’s not the point, styling is subjective. My thought is comparing the C8 to the C2 is like comparing oneself entering retirement to graduating high school, the same person, yet at a different stage in life. As for the folds and creases let’s look beyond production cars and check out the modern Formula 1 car, a design that is both amazing and mind-boggling. I do agree on the plasticky parts and especially the taillights, it looks more messed up than the Avanti.
Simply Bill, poor Studebaker Corporation had no real money to produce the original Avanti in 1961 (which didn’t arrive until after the 1962 Indianapolis 500, as it was supposed to be the 1962 500 Official Pace Car), and Studebaker Corporation gave up the South Bend ghost in December, 1963. The original Avanti was a fiberglass body on a modified V-8 Lark convertible chassis and a copy of the Hawk dashboard. Why Sherwood Egbert thought the Avanti could save Studebaker on-the-cheap was in retrospect foolhardy. The C-2 Corvette was a true revolutionary car with equal parts Zora Arkus Duntov, Ed Cole and Bill Mitchell that only became more refined between 1963 and 1967.
Say what you. The C8 is one of the few new cars that make the part of me that is still 8 years old and really obsessed with cars say “cool!”. I absolutely love it.
The “Cheap Looking” plastic on The front end of the C8 Is actually carbon fiber, there’s nothing cheap about it. Plus have you seen that the new Corvettes contemporaries?. Ferrari hasn’t made a beautiful car since the ’90s and Porsche 911s have become too big and bulky to actually be called 9 11’s
Fair point. I still don’t think the Corvette’s detailing looks very good — and would imagine that the carbon fiber isn’t cheap to repair. Yes, the contemporary 911 looks too bulky but it still strikes me as having much cleaner styling than the Corvette. I agree about Ferrari.
I largely grew up with the C3 Corvettes, they were plentiful when I was young. The older generations of Corvettes weren’t as plentiful as the C3’s were in the 70’s and early 80’s. Then the C4 Corvette was released. I instantly hated it. I thought that GM Design had bastardized the styling and form of the car. It took me a long time to get over that alleged “sin”, but after a while I realized it was a new distillation of the Corvette character. I now scan the internet looking for a C4 that is not too ragged out but not too expensive to purchase. No luck, so far.
I feel the same way about the C8; I really didn’t care much about the styling upon release a couple of years ago. GM had been teasing a mid-engine Corvette for what? 50 years? It was about time they released one and this was it. I really think it needed to happen, not even Ferrari was making a front engine/rear drive car any longer, the rest of the super car market had been mid-engine for quite a while now. The Corvette had always been a sparkling performer, in spite of it’s layout and price. It was time to enter the mid-engine realm.
Now that we’ve had a couple of years with it, I’m starting to warm up to it’s form. Not that I’m in the demographic that could afford a new Corvette, I just bought the cheapest Chevy in the line up last year. But, the more I see them, the more I have begun to appreciate them. I get where the stylists where going and really like the fact that they offer some very interesting options (e-Ray). I don’t know that I’ll be alive in 20+ years, but if I am, I’ll probably start looking for ones that aren’t too ragged out but not too expensive to purchase.
The studio head for the current Corvette also was responsible for the prior Corvette and the Camaro. He is fond of the Transformer look and it shows in all 3 of these cars. Not a look I find appealing. Interesting he has as a personal car a C3 in his retirement.
I find the C8 interesting technically, but the body is not GM’s best work. It lacks the cohesiveness of the best of the prior Corvettes. [Some retired GM Design people I know have talked of the loss of great clay modeler talent over the last 20 years.] It has surface creases when none were needed. Lines and surfaces do not “draw through” to make a truly cohesive result. Overwrought surfacing keeps coming to mind.
It is probably true that some of the solutions came from the wind tunnel work but maybe they should have compromised some aero for better aesthetics. I can point to some of the recent Ferraris where solutions for aero look like they are serving that purpose but fit within the overall design. With the C8 I just do not see the same deftness in how it was accomplished.
A common fault of all the Ferrari, Lambo, McLaren and Corvette is that they have gotten bloated over the years. In some ways the C8 wants to give the image of being an IMSA racecar translated for the street. It is clearly a “boy racer” rather than attempting to be pretty.