I think you'll find that while the Corvette technically qualifies as a mid-engined car, it does not handle like one. The C7 engine being over and behind the front axle is not even remotely the same and placing it between the axles. Concentrating the mass as close to the center of the car decreases the polar moment of inertia, resulting in a decidedly more agile car - all else being equal, and of course up to a point. Granted, with a low polar moment of inertia a car in a spin will be more difficult to correct, but GM isn't building a commuter, they're building a race car. All the world's best sports cars are "conventionally" mid-engined for this reason. It's better, not just perceived better. You couldn't achieve the same result in a FM car unless you either have a 600lb driver to add mass inboard or the driver sitting over the rear wheels to move the engine & transmission back far enough. Sticking the driver *and* engine as squarely between the wheelbase as possible is the correct answer, and you do that by putting the engine behind the driver. Moving the engine further back will also naturally improve weight transfer during launch and braking, which will have a direct correlation to track times, and getting rid of a driveshaft and exhaust saves weight and affords the opportunity to place the occupants lower in the car to improve the CoG. As with the 911, the Corvette is a brilliant execution - of a flawed design. There is big room for improvement on the racetrack and GM knows it. Hell, they knew it 30 years ago. Bean counting is why things are the way they are, not technical merit. The Corvette, so far, has done very well to manage its inferior layout and of course that works well enough for the average Corvette buyer. But if GM is going to realize their dreams, good enough will no longer be good enough.
I dont think you can beat having a 50/50 front/rear balance. Putting all the weight in the middle, even if you still have 50/50 seems like it would make it a very unstable car at speed. I drive a friends C7 and C6 Callaway and they are both squirrely to me going fast. They dont inspire any measure of confidence to me. His 6000 pnd Bentley is rock solid at any speed Ive had it. Ive done both straightaway and curves with the same opinions.
Edit: I see it says mid engine. Didn't see that on this poc phone. Probably it. I remember it being gold or maybe cream colored. Seems it was a snap together or really simple asaembly. I haven't tried to find it online. Might have been the aero, but I need more pics.
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
That blue Vette didn't exist until 1990, and most of the C5's design is based on it.
Last one I have: 1986 mid-engine Corvette Indy concept car with transverse mounted v8. Looks like some Fiero influence here. Again taken by me at GM Heritage Center. The engine picture got cut off in developing the film.
I find amusing and applaud ( ) that bit of what I choose to call, "unequivocal equivocation."
On the one hand, the post's originator asserts that "...the Corvette, as a mid-engine layout, could finish the Fiero once and for all" ( ) --- an assertion immediately followed by an assertion to the contrary on his part, "On the other hand, it could renew interest in the Fiero...." ( )
I normally might regard that degree of equivocation as perhaps worthy of the admiration of any aspiring politician uninterested in stating a definitive position on anything. Unfortunately, even that degree of equivocation blatantly ignores a third possibility --- one likely far more probable than the other two combined, namely: A new, mid-engine Corvette is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on total consumers' overall interest in Fieros, one way or another.
The new mid engine car would if anything stir interest into the Fiero as a cheaper alternative to the $150,000 plus car most can not afford. The media will mention the Fiero but not as a comparison other than to say it was GM's first effort. In short we will get more media and more attention for a while. It may stir prices in those who always wanted a Fiero and never bought one but I see no major gains in value over what we are going to see anyways.
As for parts, I am sure someone may find a way to graft parts on a Fiero at some point from a crashed one but there will be little to swap over that would not require major engineering to make work.
The bottom line is we will get media out of this some positive some negative. That is not a bad thing and it will help keep the Fiero name relevant in the public domain as now so many people are forgetting about them or were to young to know much about them.
This would be a golden time for some in the media to set the story right and give the truth about the Fiero and what really happened. It is something that needs to be told as even many Fiero owners do not know the whole story and truth.
Contrary to the Car & Driver article, I would expect a mid-engine Vette to have a tranverse mounted engine and not longitudinal. The Cadillac Cien was longitudinal, but someone from the UK helped build it. Look how long the Cien is because of it. A smaller wheel base would help the car handle better. Honestly, I think the 1986-88 Fiero GT was the perfect length for a mid engine car.
I would not be surprised to see the Vette guys taking a look at a 1988 Fiero GT for ideas. They really should. One member of the Vette team told me he once owned a 1985 Fiero and that it was a unibody. This was while I was test driving a Vette on the Milford Proving Grounds, I quickly corrected him. I also mentioned I thought I could do their slalom quicker in my Fiero than the 2009 Vette since I was used to ME. Look at the new c7, dont those fastback windows look a little familiar?
One of GM's performance group managers mentioned to me they could have went mid-engine with the existing (then C6) space frame.
[This message has been edited by gtjeff (edited 10-06-2014).]
Contrary to the Car & Driver article, I would expect a mid-engine Vette to have a tranverse mounted engine and not longitudinal. The Cadillac Cien was longitudinal, but someone from the UK helped build it. Look how long the Cien is because of it. A smaller wheel base would help the car handle better. Honestly, I think the 1986-88 Fiero GT was the perfect length for a mid engine car.
I would not be surprised to see the Vette guys taking a look at a 1988 Fiero GT for ideas. They really should. One member of the Vette team told me he once owned a 1985 Fiero and that it was a unibody. This was while I was test driving a Vette on the Milford Proving Grounds, I quickly corrected him. I also mentioned I thought I could do their slalom quicker in my Fiero than the 2009 Vette since I was used to ME. Look at the new c7, dont those fastback windows look a little familiar?
One of GM's performance group managers mentioned to me they could have went mid-engine with the existing (then C6) space frame.
Sorry but do not expect a transverse engine and with the short wheel base the handling would be more twitchy based on the geometry. If you look at most of the super cars today they are long wheel base and not transverse.
The weight also would be more centered on the car so less polar inertia movement. while you can not get the engine 100% in the center of the car you can get it close. If you have ever driven a Fiero much in the snow you will understand the short wheel base and the faster response to over steer. The Fiero with a short wheel base is more like a smaller steering wheel where it will react faster vs. a larger wheel. While faster in a steering wheel is great in a sports car faster over steer inertia is not good.
As for the trans axle a longitudinal is much stronger as with a transverse the chain is a weak spot. Shaft to shaft and gear to gear will present a much more stronger transaxle. With talk of possibly 1,000 HP they would need to avoid any weak links.
As for borrowing from The Fiero other than some general principals not much will be looked at. The new car will take more from todays technology vs. 30-40 year old thinking. Today I would expect aluminum and composites to make up the chassis and other advances in drive line etc. will be featured.
No it was just a RWD platform based on the F body with modifications.
The Indy and Cerv were AWD with a lot of work from Lotus engineering. Note Lotus Engineering is not the car branch but the separate engineering branch GM owned. It was it's own deal and once GM sold Lotus Engineering there was little hope of ever competing the car. There was not much hope anyways as GM was pretty much losing money back then to the point they would have never approved such a car. The part that did survive was the magnetic shocks GM uses today as this is where they started with the Lotus active suspension. The concept was taken on by others and perfected to what we have today. While not as radical it is one of the best active suspension out today.
Almost every Corvette mid-engine concept car has had a transversly mounted engine. Can you name even one of the Vette ME concepts that was longitudinal? The two I have pictures of in this tread are both transverse.
Yes, I drove a Fiero in the snow for 10 years and have frame rust to show for doing it.
A 88 Fiero GT would be looked at for packaging purposes, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Where do you think the idea for the Vette C5 (1997) space frame came from?
quote
Originally posted by hyperv6: Sorry but do not expect a transverse engine and with the short wheel base the handling would be more twitchy based on the geometry. If you look at most of the super cars today they are long wheel base and not transverse.
The weight also would be more centered on the car so less polar inertia movement. while you can not get the engine 100% in the center of the car you can get it close. If you have ever driven a Fiero much in the snow you will understand the short wheel base and the faster response to over steer. The Fiero with a short wheel base is more like a smaller steering wheel where it will react faster vs. a larger wheel. While faster in a steering wheel is great in a sports car faster over steer inertia is not good.
As for the trans axle a longitudinal is much stronger as with a transverse the chain is a weak spot. Shaft to shaft and gear to gear will present a much more stronger transaxle. With talk of possibly 1,000 HP they would need to avoid any weak links.
As for borrowing from The Fiero other than some general principals not much will be looked at. The new car will take more from todays technology vs. 30-40 year old thinking. Today I would expect aluminum and composites to make up the chassis and other advances in drive line etc. will be featured.
[This message has been edited by gtjeff (edited 10-06-2014).]
Almost every Corvette mid-engine concept car has had a transversly mounted engine. Can you name even one of the Vette ME concepts that was longitudinal? The two I have pictures of in this tread are both transverse.
Yes, I drove a Fiero in the snow for 10 years and have frame rust to show for doing it.
A 88 Fiero GT would be looked at for packaging purposes, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Where do you think the idea for the Vette C5 (1997) space frame came from?
CERV II, Astro II, XP-819, and 2012 Corvette Daytona are all longitudinal. There have been plenty of longitudinal mid/rear engine concepts from GM over the years.
And there have been plenty of cars in the world that had space frame designs, other than the Fiero. Where do you think GM got the idea for the Fiero frame from? The Fiero was about half a century late to the space frame concept. The Fiero was just a drop in the bucket in terms of where GM's engineers woul dhave pulled ideas for the Vette chassis. I wouldn't put too much hope in connecting a new Vette, to the Fiero.
Fiero was the first PRODUCTION space frame car. The Daytona is a race car, not a concept car, the Astro II is not a vette concept car. The XP-819 is rear engine. So you have only 1 longitudinal Corvette concept in your list. http://www.corvettes.nl/gm_prototypes/xp819/
quote
Originally posted by dobey:
CERV II, Astro II, XP-819, and 2012 Corvette Daytona are all longitudinal. There have been plenty of longitudinal mid/rear engine concepts from GM over the years.
And there have been plenty of cars in the world that had space frame designs, other than the Fiero. Where do you think GM got the idea for the Fiero frame from? The Fiero was about half a century late to the space frame concept. The Fiero was just a drop in the bucket in terms of where GM's engineers woul dhave pulled ideas for the Vette chassis. I wouldn't put too much hope in connecting a new Vette, to the Fiero.
[This message has been edited by gtjeff (edited 10-07-2014).]
Almost every Corvette mid-engine concept car has had a transversly mounted engine
Nothing to do with anything, for all the reasons hyperv6 stated -
quote
Originally posted by hyperv6:
handling would be more twitchy The weight also would be more centered on the car so less polar inertia movement. As for the trans axle a longitudinal is much stronger as with a transverse the chain is a weak spot.
Also, add in lateral torque management, which is inherently difficult in a transverse transmission with necessary unequal length driveshafts.
You can't put modern levels of power through a transverse drivetrain and get anything worthwhile.
Almost every Corvette mid-engine concept car has had a transversly mounted engine. Can you name even one of the Vette ME concepts that was longitudinal? The two I have pictures of in this tread are both transverse.
Yes, I drove a Fiero in the snow for 10 years and have frame rust to show for doing it.
A 88 Fiero GT would be looked at for packaging purposes, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. Where do you think the idea for the Vette C5 (1997) space frame came from?
Sorry but like stated above there are many cases of the longitudinal set up at Chevy. GM in the 70-80-90 were looking at transverse mostly because at the time GM had declared all cars be FWD but the Corvette even the F body replacement at one point in the GM 80. They were looking to make due with what they had available. Also the odds of getting the car built under old GM were slim to nothing. Back them it was just an attention getter.
The space frame was not really a totally new concepts and even the old C3 Vette has a cage of sorts around the passengers. The C3 had more steel in it than a Chevette. The later Vette went to the sheet molded construction and that is why they went to more of a space frame set up as the body panels today are hung much different than in the past. Today they are bolt on and in the past they were glued and bonded together with often low quality results.
The reality is the new car if it comes about will share very little with the Fiero other than to say it is mid engine. As for wheel base look at geometry and how it works in a mid engine car. Also look at the cars on the market and how much they have added to the wheel base over the years. Not only does it improve handling but packaging of more interior and in this case likely hybrid systems that will be included.
To be honest there is no reason they could not use the transaxle they have now with the engine bolted to it.
Just let the Fiero be the Fiero as it has its own merits and let the Vette be the Vette. Both are great cars and we should be proud of both of them.
The closest the Vette came to the Fiero was when they played with the idea of two transverse 2.8 V6 engines in a Citation Mule. They were worried at the time the V8 may not be around so they installed a second engine in the back much like a Fiero. A private collector owns the car today. It had beaten a unsuspecting Porsche around Detroit in one magazine story years ago.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 10-07-2014).]
Off the subject but still about the Corvette, has anyone else looked at a 2014 and noticed how bad the paint job is, the orange pill is about the worst I’ve ever seen. I was at the corvette museum and factory and I did not see one that had a decent paint job. I talk to a corvette owner that was concentering getting one but only if he could order it in primer only so he could have it painted professionally. I would not want to spend 70k+ on a car with paint like they are putting out. I’d almost be embraced I had bought it.
Originally posted by gtjeff: Fiero was the first PRODUCTION space frame car. The Daytona is a race car, not a concept car, the Astro II is not a vette concept car. The XP-819 is rear engine. So you have only 1 longitudinal Corvette concept in your list. http://www.corvettes.nl/gm_prototypes/xp819/
Fiero was the first production car from GM perhaps. The Corvette is getting its design from the track cars these days, and not a 30 year old short-lived car that GM sees as a blemish on its face. The C7 chassis is built on what they learned from the C6R, the 2015 Z06 is based on what they learned from the C7R. If the new hypercar Vette Zora is real, it's not going to be built based on what they did with the Fiero. It will be based on what they did with the Vette race cars, including the Daytona.
If vette loses the long hood it wont look like a vette anymore.
I think you miss the point that while remaining a Chevy the Corvette will for a few early years is looking at maybe doing two cars. The Corvette Stingray and the Corvette Zora. Chevy is looking to do both cars for a few years and then rotate over to the mid engine and do a cheaper version along with the high end car?
I see it as the best of both worlds as like Ferrari offers front and mid engine cars. In the Chevy case both will perform nearly as well but for less than a Ferrari price.
What people have to grasp is GM need to expand their product and not relay on building the same car for 40 plus years. I know many people are stuck in the past and that is fine but when the entire market is moving ahead you have to make some move to move ahead also or you get left behind. Just look at what happened at Cadillac when they failed to transition to where the market went. Today they are playing catch up.
The new car would redefine what a Corvette is to look like. Just as the C2 did after the C1 and the C3 did after the C2.
Besides this car is not a good representation of what we will see from what I have heard. A little better idea is in Motor Trend. Keep in mind the Daytona Prototypes in IMSA came out when the original Mid Engine C7 was expected. It looks as if GM continued the program in racing and shelved the C7 mid engine till the new money arrived and worked on it as the C8 while the C7 front engine bought them some time to finish it right. I suspect the DP cars hinted at some of the original body work but since more time has past it could change more to a different look.
The one thing even if it is mid engine no one will mistake it for anything but a Corvette as it will have enough heritage to tell you what it is.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 10-07-2014).]
Originally posted by hyperv6: The one thing even if it is mid engine no one will mistake it for anything but a Corvette as it will have enough heritage to tell you what it is.
I wouldn't be so sure. Even with all the heritage of the Vette, and having been around all the generations of the Vette my entire life, there are still times when I see a C7 and do a double-take because first glance it looked like a Ferrari.
I wouldn't be so sure. Even with all the heritage of the Vette, and having been around all the generations of the Vette my entire life, there are still times when I see a C7 and do a double-take because first glance it looked like a Ferrari.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though.
I agree there is a lot of Ferrari there but they left enough Corvette to make sure you would still know it is a Corvette. They will do the same on the next Camaro too.
The next gen has been stated to be as big of a change since the C2 with out giving details but I still expect a few hallmarks will be carried over but for sure the entire body shape will change not only to be different but to fit the lay out of a new drivetrain arraignment. Seeing that they may sell the Stingray and the C8 together for a few years I expect them to share a few details in a similar way like tail lamps etc. They would not be identical but both would carry a similar shape.
I think you miss the point that while remaining a Chevy the Corvette will for a few early years is looking at maybe doing two cars. The Corvette Stingray and the Corvette Zora. Chevy is looking to do both cars for a few years and then rotate over to the mid engine and do a cheaper version along with the high end car?
The one thing even if it is mid engine no one will mistake it for anything but a Corvette as it will have enough heritage to tell you what it is.
Yep I had mentioned that they might do two cars. I just hope one day something ghastly with a big ol butt isnt the only choice.
this mid engine idea will go into the Corvette ATTEMPT YARD with all the other versions ,i agree with collecting data from the race versions , the Covair & Fiero will always be mentioned because they were sold under the brand of GM ,with engine,s in the back ,neither were bad cars or ideas ,corporate greed to cut a corner was the bad decisions ,new fiero platform with chevy citation drive train moved to the rear. would the current transaxle work from the C7 or would it require a complete revamp to make sure the rear was not to long from the back of the door to the rear lights. GM still have to much OLD intervention to shut this project down ... the latest version is crossover = Ferrari style ,and it passed with flying colors ,the next step would be mid-engine ,with no option of a front engine version ...do it right and make the Corvette family love it. It,s time, can they, will they ,make the final hurdle into Super car status.
this transaxle is what,s required to move the axles closer to the back of the engine ,thus shortening the engine bay package ....axles forward all the gears moved back into the transaxle ,if this transmission/ transaxle design was supported more with a bolt on GM /Ford bell housing for $5-6000.00 it could be a game changer in more mid-engine applications
[This message has been edited by CETICARS (edited 10-10-2014).]
I could see the benefit of moving the engine, even with the current perfect 50/50 distribution of the C7. Namely, we could ditch the torque tube and potentially the parasitic loss that comes with it. Handling may benefit as having a 50/50 distribution with more of the weight at the true center is much better than a 50/50 with the weight pushed out to both ends of the car. Lastly aerodynamics benefit as there is no engine to clear up front leaving room for a sharper cutting edge. This is just my .02 but think what you will.
this mid engine idea will go into the Corvette ATTEMPT YARD with all the other versions ,i agree with collecting data from the race versions , the Covair & Fiero will always be mentioned because they were sold under the brand of GM ,with engine,s in the back ,neither were bad cars or ideas ,corporate greed to cut a corner was the bad decisions ,new fiero platform with chevy citation drive train moved to the rear. would the current transaxle work from the C7 or would it require a complete revamp to make sure the rear was not to long from the back of the door to the rear lights. GM still have to much OLD intervention to shut this project down ... the latest version is crossover = Ferrari style ,and it passed with flying colors ,the next step would be mid-engine ,with no option of a front engine version ...do it right and make the Corvette family love it. It,s time, can they, will they ,make the final hurdle into Super car status.
this transaxle is what,s required to move the axles closer to the back of the engine ,thus shortening the engine bay package ....axles forward all the gears moved back into the transaxle ,if this transmission/ transaxle design was supported more with a bolt on GM /Ford bell housing for $5-6000.00 it could be a game changer in more mid-engine applications
All I can say is be careful on how far you say it is not going to happen as there is more to this than you think. What they are working on is more than just another show car. The next one you will see will be a production ready model.
A word to the wise the new GM is not the same old GM. Did you ever think that GM would ever approve Cadillac to do their own line of engines again in your life time. Well it is happening. That was more of a stretch than Corvette going to RWD. Also note that would have the old GM ever approved a Camaro like the Z/28? Not if your life depended on it. The new Z is only a hint at what the new Alpha based Camaro will do. Start watching at what the new ATS V will do once it hits the LA show soon.
From those I know they are very excited at GM now as they are seeing things they never thought they would ever see GM do. The next 5-10 years are going to be interesting as like Bob Lutz says the people who are not the problem are getting the upper hand.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 10-28-2014).]
Off the subject but still about the Corvette, has anyone else looked at a 2014 and noticed how bad the paint job is, the orange pill is about the worst I’ve ever seen. I was at the corvette museum and factory and I did not see one that had a decent paint job. I talk to a corvette owner that was concentering getting one but only if he could order it in primer only so he could have it painted professionally. I would not want to spend 70k+ on a car with paint like they are putting out. I’d almost be embraced I had bought it.
Yes! 37,288 of us looked at them and bought one. I'm not living under a rock and there have been paint issues but most can be easily worked out by a professional detailing.
Most new corvettes are paint corrected and protective coated or protected film anyway. It's really a none issue for real car guys who understand for the price of a new corvette you are getting more performance per dollar than anything else on the market.
Oh by the way the base price for a 2014 corvette was $51,995 not 70,000 +, there have been 2 price increases since. 2015 base price is now $54,000. I know people who drop more on pickup trucks every couple of years. LOL
Yes! There will be a mid engine C8. GM will build it and many of us will buy one. I dropped my plans of upgrading to a Z06 and now saving my money for a C8 mid engine corvette.
Not much Fiero in this thread, huh? And I'm coming into it a bit 'late'
I know a lot more about Fieros that I do Corvettes. I do own a Corvette - a C5, for not that long though - and I've driven every generation from C3 to C6. I have yet to drive a C7, although my face is always plastered to my window every time I drive by my local Chevrolet dealer a minute away.
Many have been saying that this rear mid-engined Corvette is all marketing hype, and I can attest that this is the same story as with the last four three generations that have came out. I feel however that something that makes a potential C8 rear mid-ship car more realistic this time around - and I haven't read about this being talked about much - is this; the GM Y platform has reached it's evolutionary limit. If you think about all the "tricks" GM has performed with the Corvette in the past 20 years, you can see this pretty clearly. It's becoming more apparent in the C7 Stingray, because in particular their only real answer for bringing down MPGs is cylinder deactivation. There's nothing wrong with cylinder deactivation. However, the longitudinal front-engined RWD platform severly limits positioning of any sort of hybrid components. Also consider that every Corvette since the C5 has used further tricks especially for weight distribution, like a transaxle (transmission in the rear, coupled to the rear end/differential) and also has had to utilize two 9 gallon fuel tanks immediately behind the passengers (they're split to ensure clearance for the torque tube tunnel).
Implementation of hybrid components is why I think GM will seriously consider a major re-design to finally move into revolutionary stages. The current C7, despite any significant leaps forward in technology and creature comforts, is still based off evolution of the Y platform which just limits any sort of revolutionary changes. It retains itself as a good value sports car but in the face of competition from say Porsche's Carrera, which not only has four seats in 4S trim but technologies that are quite a bit ahead of the Corvette, means that GM is going to have do something drastic short of adding a rear set of seats which I cannot see them ever doing to the Corvette to keep the car relevant to it's competition. A rear mid-engined design could provide a platform that opens up the entire front of the car for various things. I could see something like an AWD, gas/electric hybrid being a real possiblity with such a design. The rear mid-ship could retain a tried-and true gasoline powered V8 engine, while the front of the car could house an electric hybrid setup that completely or partially deactivates the gas engine. Regenerative braking is a technology that has now disseminated into standard passenger cars and could also be an option on the table to correlate alongside the electric drivetrain. There's really a lot that could be explored, that would ultimately go beyond the longitudinal front-engined rear transaxle design that has been the norm since 1997.
The FR-S/BRZ was mentioned some posts back. I think the Asian manufacturers have been fairly smart in their front-engined, RWD models. There was some criticism when the FR-S/BRZ and Hyundai Genesis coupe all released that the relatively small underpowered cars (Hyundai 2.0 turbo in this instance) did not take advantage of a transaxle. Even the 370Z which puts out very respectable HPs would have benefitted. A transaxle would have better distributed weight and delivered more optimum cornering abilities. Not only would a transaxle be costly to design, but as the Corvette has shown it could potentially limit the platforms to evolutionary changes. As it stands now, Fuji Industries can do anything they want to the BRZ/GT86/FR-S (although they seem reluctant to) and Hyundai's Genesis has a lot of free room in it's various trim and engine applications. Basically even with a front-engine RWD platform, many of the Asian makes outside of Mazda's Miata have good chances to implement future technologies on evolutionary platforms simply because they've... well... been relatively simple.
And I guess bringing all this into the Fiero, we have to remember that for all intent and purposes the Fiero is a Frankenstein-GM product. The stamped space frame was a good idea. The coined "Endura-Flex" body panels were a good idea. It's mid-engined and shaped like a wedge to best utilize the benefits of the rear mid-engine design and reduce drag co-efficients. It's potential is "sealed" largely because of using existing GM components that were implemented around the design, rather than design the components for optimization. Ultimately the Fiero was concieved as a two-seat econo-box. There's nothing wrong with that.
What will set a rear mid-engine Corvette apart from the Fiero is that GM will go full-force into optimization of the design. Other than maybe introducing an evolution of the currently coded LT1 engine, they'll likely construct a chassis and layout that's dedicated to a rear mid-ship layout. I don't think they can realistically expect to base it off the current Y platform. Sure initially the largest issue will likely be price; such a Corvette would probably be more expensive than the current C7. One can't expect it to stay at such a high price forever though, and creating such a platform would open it up to the typical "GM sharing" amongst other GM makes. GM has already tried sharing the Y platform with Cadillac before (the XLR), and while rumor persists they may do that again with a rear mid-engine Corvette platform I can't see them making that same marketing "mistake" twice....
I want a mid engine vette but I want a lot of things. We used to have a 75 growing up and I always wanted a fiero and got one now I want a mid engine monster.
Perhaps many of you have read "FIERO", by Gary Witzenburg, first published in 1986, Sub-titled: Pontiac's potent Mid-Engined Sports Car. Published by HPBooks AND/OR Lamm-Morada/HPBooks, w/all due respect to publishing laws! Anyways, way back in this thread someone suggested we read all we can about our delightful pocket-rockets. I've had to read it twice(slow learner) to appreciate the wealth of design, engineering, testing & marketing that developed as the fiero went through its' gestation period. Don't mean to preach to the quire, but this book is a great read. Rick
Oh yeah, what Rick said! Incidentally, for any Scrabble players reading this I Googled 'quire' & it actually is a real word. (Although Rick meant choir... )
For surre! I meant to reference the collection of people what stand-sit-sing behind the fellow whom preaches to the masses. Spellin' never was a strong suit for me. I took all the shop classes in h/s. Spell check?? What's that? Have a great day gang. Rick
Wow. The more this thread rolls on, the more confused I get. I ain't slamming any of it, but back in my day-some 50 yrs ago, mid-engine had the motor right behind the driver, in front of the rearend, or transaxle. Period. We didn't have 76 other ways to say "mid-engine", the motor was in the middle of the vehicle. Maybe it was 36" from each axle center line or had a rear bias and they were configured front to back(American made). I know, some of you who were foreign car jockeys, had a side-ways squirrel cage.
So now we are all trying to save as many fieros as we can, myself, I only have 17-18 left, just trying to do my part. Many really are parts cars even though I hate to part them out. And scrap $$ are in the 1 cent a pound range right now, so if you scrapped out your un-restored 1984 fiero, you'd get what, $24.50-$26.00 for it? That ain't happen' Skippy! My yard is jammed & my projects keep screaming-feed me-so I sorta work where the least amount of $$ are needed(what the wife says). And do I need to be reminded every 6 months, dang, give me a brake. Peace y'all.
I read back here and boy did some people get the C8 really wrong.
The C8 really is an amazing car as the base model already exceeds what people expected from higher level models. The present chassis feels underpowered as the Car is well planted and set up for much more power, the price in today’s terms are great.
I do see the new car reflecting well on the Fieto even with it’s short comings. Time makes the issues into personality like an old English sports car has.
GM hit a grand slam with the new car. I have already been in one and it is amazing. It shows what GM can do if they fund and support a new model right.
OK, upfront I will admit I am an opinionated....guy; I wanted a mid-engined Vette back in the 70s- my favorite Concept Vette is the Aerovette.
The first car I ever had any interest in was the Pantera that my dentist had- could have pulled a tooth without novocaine if I was looking at that car!
I have owned a Fiero- Since new in 1985....
All that being said, I do not like the new Vette at all; I liked that it was beating the Ferraris/Lambos/Porsches with a FRONT-engine platform- and a PUSHROD engine.
Now, the back of the C7 looks like a GT-R.....Why are they spitting on what the Vettes styling has Always been? I don't like it.
The new Mid engine platform, the 4 valve engine, etc is basically admitting that Ferrari, etc were doing it the right way.....Might as well take a Ferrari and put a Vette emblem on it.
Maybe if they went back to making the Vette LIGHTER like they did with the C5 and C6 they could get better performance without selling their souls.....
The first car I ever had any interest in was the Pantera that my dentist had- could have pulled a tooth without novocaine if I was looking at that car!
O.K. I'll hang my ass out here::::so this is a "corvette" topic. Yes, first 3-4 posts were fiero related, ain't no more. Only word shared by my "FIEROS" and corvette is mid-engine. Rick
For you corvette die hard folks; go to your local Chevy dealer & grab a free copy or two of he current months "New Roads" publication. In it find a 21"X24" double sided pull-out poster of the 2020 Vette,which is on the cover also. This is a nice poster. Rick
.JPG)
) that bit of what I choose to call, "unequivocal equivocation."
) --- an assertion immediately followed by an assertion to the contrary on his part, "On the other hand, it could renew interest in the Fiero...." ( 
Oh yeah, what Rick said! Incidentally, for any Scrabble players reading this I Googled 'quire' & it actually is a real word. (Although Rick meant choir... ) 
