Just because they don't exist right now, doesn't mean GM doesn't own all the rights to the naming. If they get their act together and can properly manage making a profit rather than pilfering it all away, then maybe they could bring back a Pontiac division for performance cars.
Right now though, performance is all under the Chevrolet and Cadillac umbrellas. Buick has the Regal Turbo, but Buick is totally a luxury car division in the US.
They kind of did reproduce the Fiero - the Solstice. GM two-seater, constructed using many borrowed components, and meant to be relatively cheap (it was a bit pricey when new due to market hype, but similar thing happened with 1984 model Fieros in 1983 when dealers would add on things to jack up prices). Just because the Solstice isn't mid-engined doesn't mean it's not for all and intent purposes a spiritual successor to the Fiero. Although if a modern Fiero were to have been built I'd feel it would have looked more like the Sky with crisper lines.
If GM would have badge the Sky as the 2006-07 "Pontiac Fiero" when it came out I'd have been happy. Although Fiero still seems to have negative connotations in GM's history.
I don't think you're going to see anything quite like the Fiero or Solstice or Sky for a while from GM. If anything they're likely to go full force into the "hot hatch" segment, since that's all the rage.
[This message has been edited by Fiero84Freak (edited 09-13-2014).]
Right now this is the cold hard honest truth. There will be no future Fiero and Pontiac is and will not be coming back in any form soon.
Now that this is out of the way here are some facts.
To do a small mid engine car today at what many here would consider affordable would be a difficult task. The development cost are skyrocketing and it is making it difficult even for companies like Mazda to continue the Miata even with a partner to share the cost.
To do a car like a Fiero again would entail a lot o compromise and part bin robbing. This again would lead to some short comings and compromises even if they do a better job this time. A car like this would never sell over 20,000 units nor would you want to sell more as if you flood the market in the first year or two then there will be no one left to buy the car in later years. Note Mazda has used a system of limiting sales yearly and to limited editions that kept a car viable even at lower volumes. Note too the model generation runs are going to be long as there is so little profit here too.
Now with that said and done. Take note of the reports on the new C8 that is coming. There is a lot more truth here than is being said as I have heard about this for 3 years and the story is not being denied by GM. The C8 has been in the works even during the C7 development. It will be phased in over time as the high end car and the Stingray sold along side then in time will take over the brand with lower priced models. Note the C8 will be a Mid Engine car.
Now as for powertrains do not be shocked to find that they may use the V8 but also variations as well as a Hybrid at some point. Hints of 1,000 HP may be in play at some point too with or with out a hybrid system.
No this will not be a cheap car but I do expect the first one to be $125K-150K and later cheaper models to go $75K-125K.
This is the only fiscally feesible way GM can really do a mid engine car today that will have any staying power. It will also be sold globally another key to this deal just as it is to the Miata.
Now with that covered I would not be upraised if GM may revisit a BMW M4 like roadster that may be sold at Buick or Cadillac for $40K-60K. This would be a GT car and have a removable top and usable trunk. This if based on the Alpha or possible sub Alpha platform could be done in a range where it could get the attention it need to remain viable and to just keep it to where many could have a hope of buying one new or recently used.
The real factor is getting Cadillac and Buick fixed first with more new product that really pays the bills. Limited volume sports cars are not a priority when you still have a lot of work to do fixing the models that keep the division afloat.
I know it is fun to dream but at some point this conversation has to come back down to the ground of reality. The sad truth is cheap Sports cars are one of the most difficult cars to build when a company and economy is healthy but if they are rebuilding and the economy is stagnate it just increases the difficulty. Development cost for product is just crazy and when you see things like Ford and GM sharing the cost of a new Transmission you know times are desperate for all makers. With the looming higher CAFE they have to find solutions to the difficulty of finding ways to make their most profitable vehicles like the half ton trucks meet the new requirements. Also the new CUV market is taking off and they have to have more product to meet these needs as the CUV just out sold the sedan last year. Toss in rising cost and prices it is enough to make the strongest automaker head to worry much.
Not trying to be a downer here but when talking about this you have to use all the factors and cost to really understand how difficult this would be. The Solstice died as expected it was at the end of it's life and was not even worth rebadging as a limited Chevy or Buick at that point and they were not going to invest much more into it either.
Even some of the best small low cost sports cars in history seldom last more than 10 years at best.
Originally posted by Fiero84Freak: They kind of did reproduce the Fiero - the Solstice. GM two-seater, constructed using many borrowed components, and meant to be relatively cheap (it was a bit pricey when new due to market hype, but similar thing happened with 1984 model Fieros in 1983 when dealers would add on things to jack up prices). Just because the Solstice isn't mid-engined doesn't mean it's not for all and intent purposes a spiritual successor to the Fiero. Although if a modern Fiero were to have been built I'd feel it would have looked more like the Sky with crisper lines.
If GM would have badge the Sky as the 2006-07 "Pontiac Fiero" when it came out I'd have been happy. Although Fiero still seems to have negative connotations in GM's history.
I don't think you're going to see anything quite like the Fiero or Solstice or Sky for a while from GM. If anything they're likely to go full force into the "hot hatch" segment, since that's all the rage.
The Solstice was nothing like a Fiero. The Sky/Opel are what the Solstice should have been. There's not much "borrowed" about the Kappa cars. They are their own car. it was an interesting platform, but there was absolutely nothing about it that screamed "Fiero" to the masses.
I agree that the Sky didn't have a Fiero connection at all. I do think the Sky had the best styling but that's just my opinion. Both the Sky and Solstice had a very poor convertible top design though, look at most any used one and you will see all the creases in the rear on each side.
Right now this is the cold hard honest truth. There will be no future Fiero and Pontiac is and will not be coming back in any form soon.
With the PR catastrophic that it was & has been known for, I agree with this, 100%. They're not gonna tag 'Fiero' on anything for fear of public "Engine Fires" & also the memory of killing it off. It would be lose/lose for GM (imo).
The Solstice was nothing like a Fiero. The Sky/Opel are what the Solstice should have been. There's not much "borrowed" about the Kappa cars. They are their own car. it was an interesting platform, but there was absolutely nothing about it that screamed "Fiero" to the masses.
They did have many shared parts though better used.
The rear Axle was from a CTS.
The front fog lights were GTP
The rear lower reflector lights were GMC envoy.
The transmission was robbed from a MFG from Honda 2000.
The engine was from the Cobalt SS and HHR SS that it was originally conceived for.
That is just off the top of my head as there were many other parts robbed to be used. Now that is not a bad thing but the truth is the car was done on the cheap since GM was really short money and Lutz was really pushing this car through.
But I agree it was more an anti Fiero type car as it addressed some of the issues the Fiero had with the open top. But they failed as they did not have the money to really engineer the rear to give more trunk space.
If the rumors are true, the C8 Corvette is going mid engine. So, start saving up for the base model C8 in 2018. If I remember the article correctly the C8 will debut as the next ZR1 top of the line trim while the C7 carries on for a year or two and then all the Corvettes will be mid-engine. I guess GM engineers have figured out they have reached the engineering limits of the "front mid-engine" platform with the C7 and can only improve the C8 by going mid-engine.
Originally posted by jediperk: If the rumors are true, the C8 Corvette is going mid engine. So, start saving up for the base model C8 in 2018. If I remember the article correctly the C8 will debut as the next ZR1 top of the line trim while the C7 carries on for a year or two and then all the Corvettes will be mid-engine. I guess GM engineers have figured out they have reached the engineering limits of the "front mid-engine" platform with the C7 and can only improve the C8 by going mid-engine.
Rumors are just that.
As for "reached the engineering limits" you must be joking. There are no engineering advantages to moving to an RMR layout platform at this point. There are trade-offs, but not advantages. The C6 and C7 have near perfect weight distribution front to rear, so moving the engine to the back isn't going to improve that. There will be a slight reduction in driveline power losses, due to not needing the torque tube, but not enough to make any significant difference.
As for "reached the engineering limits" you must be joking. There are no engineering advantages to moving to an RMR layout platform at this point. There are trade-offs, but not advantages. The C6 and C7 have near perfect weight distribution front to rear, so moving the engine to the back isn't going to improve that. There will be a slight reduction in driveline power losses, due to not needing the torque tube, but not enough to make any significant difference.
The truth is there are some advantages in this case. A lower center of gravity a lower frontal profile and if they are moving to a hybrid system it is easier to incorporate into a Mid Rear set up as you can locate everything in one spot. As of now it is difficult to install a Turbo on the present car let alone anything else. I think it is all about packaging more than anything else. Just look at what they had to do in installing a Supercharger. They had to come up with one that fit in the valley area as there is so little room to work.
The fact is more is in play here than what has been stated. I really suspect things are going to change on this car in ways we have not seen or would see on the present car. Like I have said the present car could not be used in 2025 or later and make more power. So we will see some radical changes coming that will be interesting on how they work and how they are accepted.
I think it is just best we wager an Oreo on this and let this story unfold. I have trusted places I get info from and while they can not give the full story there is no one saying this is false. I will raise the stakes to a Double Stuff. LOL!
Things can change but at this point based on what I know do not discount this information. I expect soon we may hear more. Like I said this is not a new story and I have yet to hear anyone from GM refute it, if anything I have heard more to give it more legs. Tadge has gone from saying no to that they may have to consider a hybrid system and he is on record saying the C7 is not going to be around near as long as the other C platforms.
The Enzo name has been registered too. There are other factors here that are to be considered too. Watch and read anything Tadge says and Mark Reuss say as they are the first to leak much on this topic to the public. In the mean time I will listen to my insiders for leaks. There also seems to be roots to the 1,000 HP too.
As for "reached the engineering limits" you must be joking.
Nope, I never joke about the laws of physics. It's not about the front weight disto., its about centering as much of the mass as possible. There is a reason Formula 1 cars are laid out the way they are...
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 09-16-2014).]
Originally posted by jediperk: Nope, I never joke about the laws of physics. It's not about the front weight disto., its about centering as much of the mass as possible. There is a reason Formula 1 cars are laid out the way they are...
The only way to center the mass any more in the current Corvette would be to move the driver to the center like the McLaren F1. F1 cars are not street legal production vehicles with passenger seats. There are many reasons F1 cars are laid out in the way they are, and CG is only but one. F1 cars are rear engined because it means being able to put the driver as low as possible, since there doesn't need to be a large channel for the driveshaft.
Compare to a real production street legal car, and not extreme purpose race cars, if you want to make a point. CG on a C6/C7 Vette Z06/ZR1 is about the same as on the Ferrari 458. Maintaining the weight balance and CG by moving the engine to the rear will mean having to add weight up front. So unless moving the engine somehow lets the Corvette sit lower to the ground, there's not going to be a real performance advantage to it.
The only way to center the mass any more in the current Corvette would be to move the driver to the center like the McLaren F1. F1 cars are not street legal production vehicles with passenger seats. There are many reasons F1 cars are laid out in the way they are, and CG is only but one. F1 cars are rear engined because it means being able to put the driver as low as possible, since there doesn't need to be a large channel for the driveshaft.
Compare to a real production street legal car, and not extreme purpose race cars, if you want to make a point. CG on a C6/C7 Vette Z06/ZR1 is about the same as on the Ferrari 458. Maintaining the weight balance and CG by moving the engine to the rear will mean having to add weight up front. So unless moving the engine somehow lets the Corvette sit lower to the ground, there's not going to be a real performance advantage to it.
You don't need to move the weight up front in a mid engine car, hitting the brakes does that for you (physics). Having more of the mass centered rearward means more traction off the line, less parasitic drive train losses (and weight) plus creates more options for the engine and power-adders not having to fit under that low profile hood. Also reduces the added weight of insulating the tunnel the exhaust routes through while also reducing brake dive and better balancing the car under hard braking entering turns. Again, there is a reason the car writers are always singing the praises of mid-engine cars as the better driving cars even when they are not the faster car (Porsche Cayman/Audi R8). I can't believe I have to break this down on a Fiero forum... I thought that's why we all drove them...
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 09-16-2014).]
You don't need to move the weight up front in a mid engine car, hitting the brakes does that for you (physics)………... I can't believe I have to break this down on a Fiero forum... I thought that's why we all drove them...
I don't think you've pushed a fiero hard enough. To much weight in the rear makes the rear want to get ahead of you if the rear looses traction and the pendulum effect is started(braking hard in a corner vs before). Balancing a mid engine car makes a positive difference.
The only way to center the mass any more in the current Corvette would be to move the driver to the center like the McLaren F1. F1 cars are not street legal production vehicles with passenger seats. There are many reasons F1 cars are laid out in the way they are, and CG is only but one. F1 cars are rear engined because it means being able to put the driver as low as possible, since there doesn't need to be a large channel for the driveshaft.
Compare to a real production street legal car, and not extreme purpose race cars, if you want to make a point. CG on a C6/C7 Vette Z06/ZR1 is about the same as on the Ferrari 458. Maintaining the weight balance and CG by moving the engine to the rear will mean having to add weight up front. So unless moving the engine somehow lets the Corvette sit lower to the ground, there's not going to be a real performance advantage to it.
While true to a point on balance you can still move more mass to the center. Also the fact is you can lower the center of gravity more too as you put the driver behind a lower cowl. The lower the mass and CG the better. Right now the C7 pays a price with a higher roof as the driver now has to look over a higher cowl because of the engine in front. lower the cowl lower the roof. Simple.
As for the frontal area it also is a factor as lower the roof lower the CD of drag.
Finally the placement of a coming or future hybrid system would be much easier with the engine and transaxle in one place. Also they would have more area to work with in the rear than the front.
Also factor in an AWD system that can be kept more efficient and much easier to package with the engine in back. It would be more compact and lighter.
Now these are the positives you still run into negatives with the engine back there like heat, lack of storage, more expense to build and other issues etc.
Originally posted by hyperv6: While true to a point on balance you can still move more mass to the center. Also the fact is you can lower the center of gravity more too as you put the driver behind a lower cowl. The lower the mass and CG the better. Right now the C7 pays a price with a higher roof as the driver now has to look over a higher cowl because of the engine in front. lower the cowl lower the roof. Simple.
As for the frontal area it also is a factor as lower the roof lower the CD of drag.
Finally the placement of a coming or future hybrid system would be much easier with the engine and transaxle in one place. Also they would have more area to work with in the rear than the front.
Also factor in an AWD system that can be kept more efficient and much easier to package with the engine in back. It would be more compact and lighter.
There is very little room for lowering the roof in the current Corvette. It's basically as low as it can be, while still fitting drivers over 6 feet tall. I don't see the cowl being lower either, not with the giant wheels and tires on supercars today. The cab could be moved forward without the engine there, sure, but lowering frontal area on the Vette by moving the engine in the back is not likely to happen. The engine is already partially inside the dash area already. So the hood would not be as long as it is now, but it would still be just as tall. The way the CD would be lowered, would be with the ability to get closer to a teardrop/fish shape for the body, by moving the cab foward.
As for hybrid, yes, with a system where the electric motors are at the wheel hubs, like on the 918, it would make the front a good place to put the batteries for the electric drive. But I wouldn't necessarily it's easier or better. It just is one way it can be done.
And for AWD, driven by the combustion engine and not electric motors at the hubs, it doesn't make it easier or more compact to put the engine in the rear. The simplest and most compact AWD systems have the engine forward of the front axle, with the front diff transferring power to the front wheels and the rear diff simultaneously, without extra transfer cases and such, as a mid-engine design would require. The engine could be raised up with a driveshaft coming out of the front of rear transaxle which runs forward to the front diff, but you would be raising the CG too, since it would be further from the lowest and most central point of the car.
Originally posted by jmbishop: I don't think you've pushed a fiero hard enough. To much weight in the rear makes the rear want to get ahead of you if the rear looses traction and the pendulum effect is started(braking hard in a corner vs before). Balancing a mid engine car makes a positive difference.
While this is true to a degree for a FIERO with a ridiculously short wheelbase, I'm talking about what would be a mid engine vette with probably an additional foot of wheelbase which makes a big difference on the severity of the pendulum on a mid engine car when traction becomes an issue (which won't on a modern car due to computer aids). Have to point out that front engine cars have less traction and spin out with far greater frequency when pushed to the limits (when the electronic nanny aids are turned off). Also, if you are braking hard in the corner vs before you can't really pin that on the car no matter where the engine is place ;o)
And one other advantage a mid-engine vette would have is no longer needing NASCAR sized tires at all four corners increasing drag and costing fuel economy...
Originally posted by jediperk: And one other advantage a mid-engine vette would have is no longer needing NASCAR sized tires at all four corners increasing drag and costing fuel economy...
There is very little room for lowering the roof in the current Corvette. It's basically as low as it can be, while still fitting drivers over 6 feet tall. I don't see the cowl being lower either, not with the giant wheels and tires on supercars today. The cab could be moved forward without the engine there, sure, but lowering frontal area on the Vette by moving the engine in the back is not likely to happen. The engine is already partially inside the dash area already. So the hood would not be as long as it is now, but it would still be just as tall. The way the CD would be lowered, would be with the ability to get closer to a teardrop/fish shape for the body, by moving the cab foward.
As for hybrid, yes, with a system where the electric motors are at the wheel hubs, like on the 918, it would make the front a good place to put the batteries for the electric drive. But I wouldn't necessarily it's easier or better. It just is one way it can be done.
And for AWD, driven by the combustion engine and not electric motors at the hubs, it doesn't make it easier or more compact to put the engine in the rear. The simplest and most compact AWD systems have the engine forward of the front axle, with the front diff transferring power to the front wheels and the rear diff simultaneously, without extra transfer cases and such, as a mid-engine design would require. The engine could be raised up with a driveshaft coming out of the front of rear transaxle which runs forward to the front diff, but you would be raising the CG too, since it would be further from the lowest and most central point of the car.
You are not disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with industry engineers. Yes they can go lower and hybrid placement would be easier. As of now there is no room in a present Corvette for such system.
You state.
The simplest and most compact AWD systems have the engine forward of the front axle, with the front diff transferring power to the front wheels and the rear diff simultaneously, without extra transfer cases and such, as a mid-engine design would require. The engine could be raised up with a driveshaft coming out of the front of rear transaxle which runs forward to the front diff, but you would be raising the CG too, since it would be further from the lowest and most central point of the car Wow????
Do you really understand the general physic of what you have just stated? and how much damage to the handling you would do here? The engine In front of the front axle???? Raise the engine up????? You at least understand the higher CG would be the effect but you look to have no clue to what it would do to balance.
Tadge Juechter has alluded t the hybrid as being something they will have to visit not buy just choice but necessity. He is also where I got what the think is on a car like this from his past comments. I think he has a little more clue than myself and a lot more clue than you on this topic.
Originally posted by hyperv6: You are not disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with industry engineers. Yes they can go lower and hybrid placement would be easier. As of now there is no room in a present Corvette for such system.
You state.
The simplest and most compact AWD systems have the engine forward of the front axle, with the front diff transferring power to the front wheels and the rear diff simultaneously, without extra transfer cases and such, as a mid-engine design would require. The engine could be raised up with a driveshaft coming out of the front of rear transaxle which runs forward to the front diff, but you would be raising the CG too, since it would be further from the lowest and most central point of the car Wow????
Do you really understand the general physic of what you have just stated? and how much damage to the handling you would do here? The engine In front of the front axle???? Raise the engine up????? You at least understand the higher CG would be the effect but you look to have no clue to what it would do to balance.
Tadge Juechter has alluded t the hybrid as being something they will have to visit not buy just choice but necessity. He is also where I got what the think is on a car like this from his past comments. I think he has a little more clue than myself and a lot more clue than you on this topic.
Do you want to talk about AWD systems, or do you want to talk about hybrid systems? Or do you want to talk about physics and aerodynamics?
The new Lambos all have the engine/transmission off-center to accomodate the AWD system. What do you think that does for balance? I never said any of the solutions would be great. I was simply enumerating what solutions would exist for an AWD system with the engine/transmission behind the driver. Of course raising the engine, moving it to the side, or putting in front of the front axle, or rearward of the rear axle, all screw with the CG and balance. I never said they didn't. Sheesh.
Hybrid AWD is really the only way to go for optimal performance and balance. If the Corvette gets any AWD functionality, I expect it to be via a hybrid drive system.
Lamborghini has an offset engine/transmission with a transfer case and drive shaft at an angle going to the front wheels. The Nissan GTR has the engine in the front and transmission in the rear like the Corvette, but then also has a second drive shaft going back to the front off the transfer case.
I am not at all disagreeing with industry engineers. I'm commenting on your statements that claim all these things that will be done or happen with this new mid-engine platform, and how those statements disagree with industry engineering. Just look at the CERV III/Indy design. Yes, it was done in 1990, but I wouldn't expect a mid-engined Corvette that is coming out within the next 5 years to be drastically different from that. A little less in the front perhaps, and a little more in the rear to allow for a logitudinal engine rather than the transverse, but relatively close to the design still.
Uh, yeah they did. I can't think of one time the vette was tested against a European mid-engine car and it did not have the most rubber attaching it to the pavement. I can remember reading comments like, " The Corvette is the undisputed big foot of this comparo" over, and over again though (along with how bad the seats and interior are... But not anymore!). Now I will concede that some of the non all wheel drive 911's have some wide REAR tires, but that's only b/c if the rears ever did break loose... Well, watch what happens at ALMS when it rains and you can see for yourself what happens to 911's when they do manage to lose traction at the rear
[This message has been edited by jediperk (edited 09-17-2014).]
Do you want to talk about AWD systems, or do you want to talk about hybrid systems? Or do you want to talk about physics and aerodynamics?
The new Lambos all have the engine/transmission off-center to accomodate the AWD system. What do you think that does for balance? I never said any of the solutions would be great. I was simply enumerating what solutions would exist for an AWD system with the engine/transmission behind the driver. Of course raising the engine, moving it to the side, or putting in front of the front axle, or rearward of the rear axle, all screw with the CG and balance. I never said they didn't. Sheesh.
Hybrid AWD is really the only way to go for optimal performance and balance. If the Corvette gets any AWD functionality, I expect it to be via a hybrid drive system.
Lamborghini has an offset engine/transmission with a transfer case and drive shaft at an angle going to the front wheels. The Nissan GTR has the engine in the front and transmission in the rear like the Corvette, but then also has a second drive shaft going back to the front off the transfer case.
I am not at all disagreeing with industry engineers. I'm commenting on your statements that claim all these things that will be done or happen with this new mid-engine platform, and how those statements disagree with industry engineering. Just look at the CERV III/Indy design. Yes, it was done in 1990, but I wouldn't expect a mid-engined Corvette that is coming out within the next 5 years to be drastically different from that. A little less in the front perhaps, and a little more in the rear to allow for a logitudinal engine rather than the transverse, but relatively close to the design still.
You are disagreeing with them as I am only saying what most of them have been saying or covering.
Anyone who is going back to the Cerv III really is missing out on just what is really going on today.
You may call it enumerating I call it clueless. Yes you never said it would not mess with the balance and CG but the comments were illogical and counter productive and not really feasible for building a great car. In fact the statement broke the golden rules of physics.
I have made my statement agree or not just let it go. I am not going to argue with you.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 09-17-2014).]
Uh, yeah they did. I can't think of one time the vette was tested against a European mid-engine car and it did not have the most rubber attaching it to the pavement. I can remember reading comments like, " The Corvette is the undisputed big foot of this comparo" over, and over again though (along with how bad the seats and interior are... But not anymore!). Now I will concede that some of the non all wheel drive 911's have some wide REAR tires, but that's only b/c if the rears ever did break loose... Well, watch what happens at ALMS when it rains and you can see for yourself what happens to 911's when they do manage to lose traction at the rear
And one other advantage a mid-engine vette would have is no longer needing NASCAR sized tires at all four corners increasing drag and costing fuel economy...
You are getting the idea. This is more about packaging and more about getting better MPG while preserving performance. We will see some radical thing very soon. Things you never considered for a Corvette.
By the way they want to get back to NASCAR size tires as what they have now are larger. Might take note that Cadillac has take to restricting the size of the tires on the ATS and CTS because of the weight and unsprung weight. The smaller tires perform better and reduce weight in the car.
The fact is GM has wanted to get the Corvette back under 3000 pounds at some point and with what they have now it will not do it. I expect they will work at weight removal just as Cadillac has. GM is doing this on most of the coming models.
And one other advantage a mid-engine vette would have is no longer needing NASCAR sized tires at all four corners increasing drag and costing fuel economy...
You are getting the idea. This is more about packaging and more about getting better MPG while preserving performance. We will see some radical thing very soon. Things you never considered for a Corvette.
By the way they want to get back to NASCAR size tires as what they have now are larger. Might take note that Cadillac has take to restricting the size of the tires on the ATS and CTS because of the weight and unsprung weight. The smaller tires perform better and reduce weight in the car.
The fact is GM has wanted to get the Corvette back under 3000 pounds at some point and with what they have now it will not do it. I expect they will work at weight removal just as Cadillac has. GM is doing this on most of the coming models.
Another good point (and frankly I can't believe I overlooked. I have had six concussions though in my defense ;o).
Originally posted by jediperk: Uh, yeah they did. I can't think of one time the vette was tested against a European mid-engine car and it did not have the most rubber attaching it to the pavement. I can remember reading comments like, " The Corvette is the undisputed big foot of this comparo" over, and over again though (along with how bad the seats and interior are... But not anymore!). Now I will concede that some of the non all wheel drive 911's have some wide REAR tires, but that's only b/c if the rears ever did break loose... Well, watch what happens at ALMS when it rains and you can see for yourself what happens to 911's when they do manage to lose traction at the rear
Uhm. OK.
Aventador: 255/35-19 FT 335/30-20 RR Veneno: 255/30-20 FT 355/25-21 RR Huracan: 245/30-20 FT 305/30-20 RR
458 Italia: 235/35-20 FT 295/35-20 RR 458 Speciale: 245/35-20 FT 305/30-20 RR LaFerrari: 265/30-19 FT 345/30-20 RR
911 Turbo/Turbo S/GT3: 245/35-20 FT 305/30-20 RR
Agera R: 265/35-19 FT 345/30-20 RR
Yeah, such tiny tires on all those European supercars.
C6 Z06: 275/35-18 FT 325/30-19 RR C6 ZR1: 285/30-19 FT 335/25-20 RR C7: 245/40-18 FT 285/35-19 RR
Learn to read better comments. The wheels and tires are not going to get smaller on the Vette with the engine in the back. If anything, they will get larger if GM is going to push for 1000 BHP in it, probably closer to the sizes on the LaFerrari and Agera R.
Originally posted by hyperv6: The fact is GM has wanted to get the Corvette back under 3000 pounds at some point and with what they have now it will not do it. I expect they will work at weight removal just as Cadillac has. GM is doing this on most of the coming models.
You realize the C6 Z06 only weighs 3200 lbs, and the C7 coupe weighs 3300 lbs, right? The last time a production Vette was under 3000 lbs was 1957. And it was only barely under 3000 lbs then. I highly doubt a mid engine platform is going to bring that weight down. And even if they do, it won't be a result of smaller wheels and tires.
Aventador: 255/35-19 FT 335/30-20 RR Veneno: 255/30-20 FT 355/25-21 RR Huracan: 245/30-20 FT 305/30-20 RR
458 Italia: 235/35-20 FT 295/35-20 RR 458 Speciale: 245/35-20 FT 305/30-20 RR LaFerrari: 265/30-19 FT 345/30-20 RR
911 Turbo/Turbo S/GT3: 245/35-20 FT 305/30-20 RR
Agera R: 265/35-19 FT 345/30-20 RR
Yeah, such tiny tires on all those European supercars.
C6 Z06: 275/35-18 FT 325/30-19 RR C6 ZR1: 285/30-19 FT 335/25-20 RR C7: 245/40-18 FT 285/35-19 RR
Learn to read better comments. The wheels and tires are not going to get smaller on the Vette with the engine in the back. If anything, they will get larger if GM is going to push for 1000 BHP in it, probably closer to the sizes on the LaFerrari and Agera R.
Reading comprehension is something I fear you need to work on. I said any mid-engine European car a vette has been tested against. The only cars on your list with as much total tire have never been tested against the Vette because they are "hyper cars" with insane amounts of HP. Look at the mid-engine cars that are comparable in HP/TQ ratings tire sizes and they are all using less total tire front and rear. Nice try though...
Originally posted by jediperk: Reading comprehension is something I fear you need to work on. I said any mid-engine European car a vette has been tested against. The only cars on your list with as much total tire have never been tested against the Vette because they are "hyper cars" with insane amounts of HP. Look at the mid-engine cars that are comparable in HP/TQ ratings tire sizes and they are all using less total tire front and rear. Nice try though...
Uhm, what? All but 3 of the cars I listed have less than 700 HP.
I think you're the one that needs to work on your reading comprehension. Sorry, I'll look for the one where they run a ZR1 against a 10 year old Lotus Elise instead.
Uhm, what? All but 3 of the cars I listed have less than 700 HP.
I think you're the one that needs to work on your reading comprehension. Sorry, I'll look for the one where they run a ZR1 against a 10 year old Lotus Elise instead.
Yeah, those are the cars (less than 700 HP) which had less tire than a comparable vette. Again, nice try...
You realize the C6 Z06 only weighs 3200 lbs, and the C7 coupe weighs 3300 lbs, right? The last time a production Vette was under 3000 lbs was 1957. And it was only barely under 3000 lbs then. I highly doubt a mid engine platform is going to bring that weight down. And even if they do, it won't be a result of smaller wheels and tires.
Again you are not arguing with me you are arguing with the people from the Corvette team. The goal in the future is to cut the weight of the Corvette to under 3000 pound. I know that the present car is 3200 and more for the present ZR1 and Z06.
But again you are present day and not considering that they are looking 10 years out. Weight is a major issue as that is the most effective way to increase MPG and also performance. Not only do you gain in 0-60 but also handling and stopping.
Add to this the fact that there will have to be changes to drivetrains and hybrid systems that will or could add even more weight.
You can doubt all you like as you have already demonstrated the lack of understanding on this topic that those who are doing the work are saying a much different story. Tires and wheels are only a small part of this. If you would take the time to research the stories on how GM took weight out of the ATS when it arrived the tires and wheels were a part of a multi faceted attack on weight as they look at everything right down to the number of fasteners holding some parts on and how much each weighed.
To cut weight in a car there is no one large chop it is a few ounces here and the there with a pound or two there if you are lucky. Composites also will become more common as they now have molded carbon fiber products that save labor time making. that is where the cost was.
GM is and has been working to get just below the 3000 pound mark and very well will get there at some point. For going into the future all cars will have to lose mass or size if they are on gasoline.
GM made a big point on the tires and wheels for weight in the Cadillac and this will apply to many other cars. Also the side effect is less unsprung weight. The larger wheels are only needed for two things Styling and larger brakes. Lower the weight the brakes can get smaller and guess what even less weight with smaller brakes. and less unsprung weight got better handling.
Large tires and wheels on a car are like putting shoes on that are tied to bricks. The reaction of movement is slowed and the over all effect will slow you down and take more energy to move and control.
Again we are back to simple physics.
These comments are based on what the Corvette engineers have commented on and not my own thoughts. So if you disagree send them the e mail.
Yeah, those are the cars (less than 700 HP) which had less tire than a comparable vette. Again, nice try...
Do you not know how to read tire sizes? Or what? Also, HP numbers are a pretty stupid comparison. A vette making 600 HP at 5000 RPM has a way different power curve than a Ferrari making 800 HP at 9200 RPM.
How about you actually point to these so called comparisons you're talking about instead of trying to be right for the sake of arguing?
Originally posted by hyperv6: Again you are not arguing with me you are arguing with the people from the Corvette team.
Again, I am not arguing.
You just keep making long winded comments and talking about "the Engineers said this" like it's somehow fact. Yet you provide no actual references to these statements. You've only linked to posts on rumor mill sites, and using the "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who used to work at GM 20 years ago who claims to know what's going on" nonsense.
Physics is physics and you can't argue with it.
Yes, big tires means more traction width which means more rolling resistance. Nobody said that wasn't the case. However, you can't argue that GM is trying to bring the Vette under 3000 lbs, and push more than 1000 HP out the back, and then say they're going to do it on smaller tires. It's not going to happen. Physics still holds. Like I said, I expect the tires to get bigger, not smaller.
Unless you have some internal document that lists exact specifications on that car, then please stop trying to argue with my expectations, because they are founded on physical evidence, and not rumors. Otherwise, present physical evidence to the contrary. 2017 model lineup is less than 2 years out, not 10. So don't try to condescend with that "you're not thinking far enough ahead" when I'm refuting someone who keeps going on about current model comparisons.
You just keep making long winded comments and talking about "the Engineers said this" like it's somehow fact. Yet you provide no actual references to these statements. You've only linked to posts on rumor mill sites, and using the "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who used to work at GM 20 years ago who claims to know what's going on" nonsense.
Physics is physics and you can't argue with it.
Yes, big tires means more traction width which means more rolling resistance. Nobody said that wasn't the case. However, you can't argue that GM is trying to bring the Vette under 3000 lbs, and push more than 1000 HP out the back, and then say they're going to do it on smaller tires. It's not going to happen. Physics still holds. Like I said, I expect the tires to get bigger, not smaller.
Unless you have some internal document that lists exact specifications on that car, then please stop trying to argue with my expectations, because they are founded on physical evidence, and not rumors. Otherwise, present physical evidence to the contrary. 2017 model lineup is less than 2 years out, not 10. So don't try to condescend with that "you're not thinking far enough ahead" when I'm refuting someone who keeps going on about current model comparisons.
Note a lot of this information is old and confuses the C7 and C8 since the C8 was really the C7 and was pushed back.
The point here is no matter if it is a Corvette or full size truck MASS is the problem for all future vehicles unless they are battery operated or have some very advanced hybrid system. I am just trying to point you in the right direction as you are headed down the wrong road. You are not the only one who does not grasp how serious the CAFE issues are. Ford went to the hail mary on the F150 as their trucks were major porkers and even with all the Aluminum they will only be about 300 pounds lighter than the Chevy trucks. Chevy has been working on weight a lot longer and have done well just with steel and will gain more once they go to Aluminum.
Also note the smaller trucks are going to be marketed to replace the half ton trucks. The new way trucks will be sold is the cheaper mid size will be marketed to replace many half ton sales as time goes on. The half tons will rise in price to help limit sales and keep profits up. More focus will be placed on the 3/4 and one ton as they have less fuel restrictions at this point.
The new Camaro will have major weight loss measure in place and we should see the results soon. The fact is mass is a problem and about the only way you can gain much more MPG. You can not get too much more aero and you can not deactivate more cylinders etc.
As for weight loss they are counting ounces in what they are doing as they add up to pounds and more. So a couple pounds per tire is a pretty big gain.
As for tires they are also the one area that adds a lot of aero drag. The tire width is all frontal area and the wider the more drag. Engineers take this very seriously anymore.
As for Engineers I would take their word over yours. I know enough of them at GM to understand they are based in fact when in your case you are still pondering Pontiac's return. Get real. Sure Pontiac owns the name but that is only for legal use rights and licensing. Auto makers make a lot of money of the use of names anymore on shirts, hats and models.
