Despite the fact that General Motors has already pulled the wraps off of the highly anticipated Chevrolet C7 Corvette Stingray – in both coupe and convertible forms – there's still a lot we don't know about The General's new halo car. When it first launched, GM stated that the 'Vette's new 6.2-liter LT1 V8 would put out an estimated 450 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. But some PDF scans found by the folks at the Corvette7 forum site show that the Stingray coupe might actually throw down 455 hp and 460 lb-ft – increases of 5 hp and 10 lb-ft over the original numbers, and gains of 25 hp and 36 lb-ft versus the current car's 6.2-liter LS3 V8.

If these PDF scans are to be believed, it looks like only the coupe will benefit from this slightly more powerful setup, as a similar spec list for the Corvette Stingray Convertible states that the droptop will make 450 hp and 450 lb-ft – spot on with the original estimates. Official fuel economy numbers are still unknown, though GM has previously stated that the 'Vette is "expected to improve" upon the current car's EPA highway rating of 26 miles per gallon.

We expect the officially official numbers to be revealed later this year, closer to the Corvette's launch. Head over to Corvette7 to read more, and check out the PDF scans for yourself in the gallery below.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 129 Comments
      Eddie Dwyer
      • 1 Year Ago
      Awesome.
      thenewrick
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm not an American muscle car kind of guy but this car is impressive and very pretty minus the hood vent. I'd love to see Chevy make a new Corvair or some type of smaller, entry-level, forced induction babyvette to compete with the BRZ/FR-86.
        Ducman69
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thenewrick
        They already tried that with the Solstice. It kinda sucked.
          Shiftright
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ducman69
          Actually it didn't suck at all. Sure it had a useless trunk and was kinda cramped, but it was sexy as hell and the media praised its handling and overall driving experience.It only died because Pontiac and Saturn were killed. Also, the Corvair was a 2+2 GT based on a sedan's mechanicals, whereas the Solstice was a die hard sports car.
      Scooter
      • 1 Year Ago
      25mpg is pretty impressive for such a beast. I'm liking the car more and more, although I still think the rear is a bit too busy.
      k_m94
      • 1 Year Ago
      The C6 Corvette produced 430hp, but a dual mode sports exhaust brought up the total to 436. Maybe the difference between the 455/460 of the coupe and the 450/450 of the convertible may be due to the Z51 pack or similar option on the coupe? The 25hp power increase is probably mostly negated by the 90lb weight increase, but the benefit of DI should show in the form of a better low end torque curve and more efficiency. While we'd all like to see cars lose weight, the Corvette is a light car to begin with, and it's simply got a lot more/better stuff in it this time around.
      Stomp and steer
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's not always how much horsepower and torque it makes. It's how it's delivered in the power band. It's supposed to have alot more grunt down low.
        EB110Americana
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Stomp and steer
        Power under the curve. Hard to visualize with just numbers, but easy to feel from behind the wheel.
      Finklestein
      • 1 Year Ago
      nice torque for the engine size. i imagine this will give c6 z's a run for their money up until 100mph or so
      Terrance
      • 1 Year Ago
      fellas,loved all your comments,interesting.
      Avinash Machado
      • 1 Year Ago
      Nice.
      jjr526
      • 1 Year Ago
      Can I have it?
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        Nickoo
        • 1 Year Ago
        You must be an east coast city boy, 'cause I see these being driven as commuters everyday here in SoCal. Name me another sports car with this much power/handling combined with the ability to be a daily driver that will easily hit 200k and not even break a sweat doing it.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          [blocked]
          ravenosa
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          The Camaro's much cheaper looking, too.
          Nickoo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          Always busy, if you don't know the difference between a pony car and a sports car, why are you wasting your time on Autoblog? Get back in your cramry and leave us car enthusiasts to ourselves.
          always_busy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          Now, they both look similar. The Corvette is just a more expensive Camaro at this point. Only middle aged white men buy this car new because they couldn't afford one in their youth. Only fanbois that have never owned one think that the Corvette is the top dog. The rest of us know better and buy better and more capable vehicles.
          always_busy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          Your ad hominem attack falls flat. My statement is correct. If someone is looking for a sporty/fast car the Camaro makes more power and costs less than the Corvette. The Corvette is an image car, period. But that's all I have to say, as I know am right and am no longer going to defend my CORRECT statements to fanbois that have no clue. I will suggest at least watch some videos and read some reviews of other cars to broaden your views and see the many cars that are out there.
          cfphelps
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          @always_busy Only the ZL1 and Z/28 make more HP than the base C7, the Zl1 base price is higher, and the Z/28 is unannounced but rumored to be higher still. Not to mention about 600 lbs heavier. The Corvette isn't just an "expensive Camaro", it has a totally different and more focused chassis and suspension. Your comment makes you seem very ignorant.
          domingorobusto
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nickoo
          Wow always_busy, I haven't seen such a transparent trolling attempt in quite a long time. At least I hope it's that, if you're being serious... man, I just don't know how you could be that willfully ignorant. You do realize that it's not just about power, right? That power to weight ratio is far more important? For instance, lets look at the Camaro ZL1. Yeah, it makes 580 hp. It also weighs 4120 lbs. That gives it a ratio of 7.1 lbs/hp. The C7, using these estimates, will have 455 hp at 3300 lbs, giving it a ratio of 7.25 lbs/hp. So basically identical. And you don't think that extra 900 lbs is going to have an effect on handling, braking, and every single other factor of the cars performance? The base C7 will hand any of the pony cars their ass on a platter on a road course. If you don't realize this, you really don't know a single thing about cars.
        • 1 Year Ago
        [blocked]
        Gorgenapper
        • 1 Year Ago
        Cool story bro.
        Tetratron
        • 1 Year Ago
        We're talking a car, not your posting sir.
      Louis MacKenzie
      • 1 Year Ago
      All that DI and VVT technology gets a 6.2L only 450ish HP? That's sad.
        Nickoo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Louis MacKenzie
        >2013 >commenting on autoblog >not understanding there is more to hp than volumetric displacement
        BahamaTodd
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Louis MacKenzie
        VVT, and cylinder deactivation is for fuel economy. The auto L99 Camaro makes only 400hp because of it. Assuming they build a new LS7 equivalent, that will be a good representation of their capabilities.
        MONTEGOD7SS
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Louis MacKenzie
        C63 AMG is 6.2L, DOHC, only has 451hp, and gets absolutely horrendous fuel mileage. Tell me again how bad the LT1 is.
          Eric M
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          Well, AcidTonic\'s made a well-thought-out response, yet misses the point completely. Peak horsepower numbers are good for advertising and it seems to have worked on the sheep. Take the S2000\'s F20C you listed. Sure, it gets 240hp from only 2.0L of displacement, so fanboys can cite 120hp/L as if it means something. But it makes that peak number at 8,300 rpm. More importantly, it makes only 153 lb-ft of torque at a dizzying 7,500 rpm. On the street, the S2000 isn\'t that quick. It doesn\'t reach 100hp (or 100lb-ft) until almost 5,000 rpm. The F20C weighs about 325 lbs. So .74 hp/lb and .55 lb-ft/lb, and a peak power between 7500 rpm and 8300 rpm. Compare that to this LT1. It makes 455hp @ ~5700 rpm and 460lb-ft @ ~4200rpm. More importantly, the LT1 is making 400 lb-ft of torque at ~2000 rpm where the F20C is making less than 50 lb-ft (no kidding). It\'s called \"area under the curve\" and the LT1 kicks butt in that regard. But the LT1 is also compact, being no longer or taller than the F20C and only about 85 pounds heavier (~405 lbs). So 1.12 hp/lb and 1.14 lb-ft/lb, and a peak power between 4200 rpm and 5700 rpm (2500 rpm lower than the F20C). The LT1 Vette motor has three times the displacement, yet makes eight times the power at revs under 2500 rpm, and four times the power under 5000 rpm. And likely gets similar fuel economy.
          always_busy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          Who said anything about a Mercedes? Dodges old 6.1 got 425hp and now their 6.4 gets 470. Hell the Nissan makes more power with a forced induction v6! Tell me again how great the LT1 is.
          always_busy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          There are still other vehicles that approach, match or beat the corvette in terms of power. I'm not a fanboi, so maybe that's why I don't drool over this car when there are more (and better) alternatives.
          Louis MacKenzie
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          De-tuned, emission, or gas mileage, that engine could have gotten more power out of that giant capacity engine and all that new technology. GM just could have done better than that. Fan boys can deny all they want but GM dropped the ball on that one when their C7 base isn't too far on HP from Boss 302 with much smaller capacity V8 running similar technology. Could have, would have, and should have.
          Darius
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          @a_b This is the BASE CAR. Compared with the base Porsche 911 455 hp is outstanding enhanced only by the 460 lb-ft torque figure. Best believe if/when this engine goes into the Chevy SS it will still be faster than the Charger. Also remember GM put the more efficient 500 hp 426 into the Camaro Z/28 a car that murders any Charger/Challenger. With this engine the Corvette is supposed to return about 28 mpg hwy with a 0-60 time of 3.9 sec. Calm the hell down. And if you really want performance wait for the next Z06 with close to 600 hp and the next ZR1 with close to 700 hp. Another thing GM was putting out 400 hp from their 5.7 in the C5 so many years ago so 425 from a 6.1 wasn't anything special.
          AcidTonic
          • 1 Year Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          @Darius That 400hp 5.7 was a DOHC engine from Mercury Marine that GM had literally nothing to do with building. It was more like asking another company who makes boat engines if they could build something. Besides, if we're talking NA horsepower hardly anything beats the 4.0 liter flat 6 in the GT3 making 500 horsepower.... 125hp/liter with no forced induction. Vett is *still* making ~70hp/liter and always has been around that area or lower. 350hp 5.7 = 61hp per liter (GTO) 400hp 6.0 = 66hp per liter (GTO) 450hp 6.2 = 72hp per liter (latest and greatest Vette) 500hp 7.0 = 71hp per liter. (Z06) *Forced Induction* 580hp 6.2 = 93hp per liter (ZL1) 620hp 6.2 = 100hp per liter (ZR1) Then something like a few imports with forced induction.... 276hp 2.0 = 138hp per liter (Evo in 1995) 295hp 2.0 = 148hp per liter (Lancer Evo X in 2008) 530hp 3.8 = 140hp per liter (Nissan GT-R 2012) And without forced induction.... 240hp 2.0 = 120 hp per liter (S2000) 200hp 2.0 = 100hp per liter (RSX) 212hp 1.3 = 163hp per liter (RX-8 rotary) The only conclusions I see are that GM basically always has about 70hp per liter. With their forced induction they barely get to 100hp per liter.... Meanwhile others are simply easily cracking the 100hp per liter envelope without using turbos or superchargers. Nothing is wrong with throwing more engine at the problem other than fuel economy. If GM can continue doing other "tricks" to make these engines somewhat efficient more power to them. I kind of respect their genuine push forward with such an old technology. Even though the engines really boast a compact footprint, GM vehicles always seem to be huge which doesn't make much sense to me. Out of everyone, GM has the only engine small enough to fit in small tight spots such as those required for a front-engine V8 AWD small lightweight car. It would be the game changer of the century but still we just get wide fat cars using these interestingly small engines. GM just needs to "evolve" a little more. They have the right tools to build what I'd like to buy from them.
        Bobby Tiger MacRae
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Louis MacKenzie
        agreed sad......
      AaronC
      • 1 Year Ago
      You can get a Shelby 500 mustang with 662 horse and 631 torque, which is priced the same, and lighter.. Oh and wait it gets better that is actually better then the vette zr1!! WHICH IS 60k more expensive. I understand Corvette has it's fans as do GM, but when it comes to 2 door sports performance why would anyone take a vette or camaro over a stang?
        Donny Hoover
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        I didn't realize 500 lbs more weight plus was "lighter". I also didn't realize it was better than a ZR1 let alone a Z06, both of which are faster despite having less power.
        Bandit5317
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        You need to check your facts. This car is estimated to weigh a maximum of 3300 lbs (90 lbs more than the current C6), which is 550 lbs lighter than the 2013 GT500. You're delusional if you think a GT500 can touch a ZR1, even in a straight line. The ZR1 weighs 3400 lbs (3333 according to some sources) and only has 22 less horsepower. It also has a better suspension, Carbon Ceramic brakes, and better tires. Even the heavier, less power Camaro ZL1 regularly beats the GT500 on road courses.
        Brady Skeen
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        I know people are ignorant sometimes but this tops it. "priced the same, and lighter.." "when it comes to 2 door sports performance why would anyone take a vette or camaro over a stang?"
        a2004ssr
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        Better than the ZR1? maybe in your tiny mind , the ZR1 will walk all over a Shelby 500 Mustang
        Tetratron
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        That is some terribly transparent posting, not to mention fill of tripe. Out of what orifice did you pull get the idea that the Mustang is lighter than a Vette? The stang is a good car if a little rough (part of it's charm), but that is a damn fantasy. Why don't you tell us what Ford dealership you work?
        capn233
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        There isn't much of a comparison here as the Shelby is mostly a straight line wonder. Which is why the heavier, less powerful Camaro ZL1 bests it on the road course in many comparisons.
        Steve Adams
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        who wants to own a car that drops like a rock in value , plus it drives like a tin can
        kwaaf
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        because in 6 years neither will be on the road.
        domingorobusto
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        Wow. I love the GT500, and it's a beast. But, yeah, it weighs around 3800-3900 lbs depending on options, and the Vette is going to be around 3300. And the ZR1 will destroy a GT500 in basically any contest of speed (stock for stock) precisely BECAUSE it's lighter than the Mustang. The C7 is going to be faster than the GT500 in anything but a straight line. But the C7 doesn't have a back seat, makes a lot less power, is less useable, etc while being more expensive. It's all in what you want to do.
        michael
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AaronC
        you can't compare the two cars buddy, the vette will out perform that tire spinning sled around any track on the planet. vette is a sports car
    • Load More Comments