GM Design Director defends 2014 Corvette Stingray tail lights

GM Design Director Tom Peters defends the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray tail lights. He explains the rationale behind the back end of the C7, in response to the controversy and criticism surrounding the lack of round lights. And he points out the differences between the tail lamps on the Chevy Camaro and those of the new Stingray.

For more Corvette reviews, photos and videos: http://www.autoweek.com/section/corvette

Advertisement

9 Comments

  1. Luke Foster says:

    They can defend it till the cows come home. Common since would have told them don’t copy any design. ITs “THE VETTE” What they did destroyed the looks of the car, and took away from the style that’s been special for all of us in the past. Now its just a copy car.
    The one company that is already offering a complete back end, in 3 weeks, did more for the looks of the C7 than this guy that designed it did in a year and a half. It almost looks thrown away.
    Looks fantastic with the over seas back end but thats not standard c7.
    Long live the c5s with their long sleek look about them and the c6′s with they up sweep back end, but the legacy is over for it now with this slid in copy production .. Corvette use to stand for the flagship of GM and what all others were based upon having a style of its own. Different. Beyond all others.
    Not any more. Thats whats so sad.

  2. AL ROBERTS says:

    Sorry Tom, You and your design guys missed it on these tail lights. In your defence vidio it sounds like you are also lacking a clear definition.

  3. Michael Reb says:

    Enough said…. Traditionalists get over it! The round taillights sucked, and this comes from a owner of a 66 convertible. I would trade it for a new one in a minute1

  4. osama khalid says:

    said it many time and will say it again.. no reason to change the traditional rounded tails..check the after market ONYX they are hotter than this new one ! i even dont c the neon light that powerfully.. unlike the cars in VW !

    i disagree its not like the front headlights.. coz the flip headlights fashion died long ago so they did change it the right time.. those camaro inspired is clear message stating that HEY we love Camaro more and all chevy now follow Camaro.. also those designers copied european rivals. i only c the car as performance better which actually could have been implemented the same on c6 specially the GS !

    A YELLOW turning signal ! puuuuuuffffffffff

    SORRY it could have been a real stingray but not this ! could have done it waaaaaaay better. i can easily desing much meaner aggressive look if im given a real chance

    in the end we will accept it as it is coz CHANGE

    yolo

  5. Jim Woodland says:

    Time will tell, but as an owner of 10 Corvettes from 1965: This “thing ” sucks! The design team should be executed.

  6. Patrick McGinnis says:

    @Tom Peters: Forget it… Bangle screwed up the BMW rear and you screwed up the Corvette rear. I just traded our 2010 GS on a 427 Roadster INSTEAD OF A C7 – largely because of the Camaro tail and other slots and trashy looking, un-clean, style gimmicks…I owned European sports cars and wouldn’t touch a Corvette until the C5 was developed, then bought a ’98 (which was too big and had the damn pop-up air-brake head lamps… Much of that was fixed on the C6, so you can’t say I’m “too traditional”…With the crap design of the C7, it was only logical that the 427 Roadster (NOT CONVERTIBLE) was the logical way to go instead of a C7.

    I never thought Corvette would do a worse design job than Bangle… but Chevrolet did! Too bad, so sad… perhaps you can fix it in a few years… I wouldn’t be seen in a Camaro, so I won’t go down that path.

  7. Steve A says:

    Haters gonna hate. I’ve owned 4 Corvettes since 1988 and am 60 y/o.

    It took me a moment or two to see the essence of Corvette the C7. Once I saw it, I was all over it. The tail lights are right for this design, just as the end of flip up headlights was right for the C6.

    I’d be very surprised if this affects sales negatively.

  8. Terry C says:

    I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about the C6 bug eye headlamps…’”Vettes are supposed to have hideaways”, I said. But I evetually bought a ’07. I didn;t care so much at fist for the C7 tail lamps myself but didn;t see them as a Camaro copy. Camaro tail lamps dual, individual squared off half circles. The C& lamps are a single units with two trapezoidal lenses that integrate a functional vent following the outline of the rear fender. They’re not even close. I would probably compare the Camaro lamps more to those in the bumper of a ’68 Impala. But my first impression of the C7 lights was disappointment at first, then after viewing a few images, they began to grow on me. At this point, those that still don;t like them can write all they want about them, but I highly doubt they will adversely effect sales of the C7. I won’t be trading my C6 in any time soon but i wouldn’t put it past me to pick one up in ’16 or ’17 once they’ve got any bugs all ironed out.

    What I’d really like to see is a high revving smaller displacement aluminum V8 back down in the 300 cu in (5L)range. I hear that something along that line might be in the works for “a more affordable ‘Vette” and seems to sour some purists as much as these tail lamps. But a 5L that still puts out anywhere near 400hp and eclipses 30mpg would surely be a good fit for the Corvette as long as they stick with the existing Tremec manual and not use the one out of the LT Camaro.

    I’m really looking forward to seeing the development of the C7 over the coming years.

  9. bob brown says:

    in 1963 they put a bar down the center of back window .IT WAS PERFECT.took it out in 1964.the tail lights- the side windows-in2014 can go anytime .maybe in 2015 will get jump seat’s for the kid’s.

Leave a Comment

 

— required *

— required *