Im going to say that cars will be extinct before Corvette has the engine behind the driver. Real Corvette people (the real buyers) hate any drastic change. There were a LOT of upset Corvette people when they just done away with hidden headlites on the C5. I know several people that even bought the new Stingray, that decided quick they didnt like them. My cousin bought a new coupe, put 900 miles on it in 2 years and gave it away to his best friend. Another bought a new one this past summer and already traded it in on a new Maserati GT. If Im wrong, OK.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 12-20-2017).]
It is going to be really interesting to see what GM can do when they put all of their resources behind a mid-engine corvette project. In terms of track performance, GM has been smoking competition for the past decade, especially when you control for price.. I have faith they can build an awesome mid-engine Corvette, but the real question is can they do it cheap.
Was the fiero cheap? Accounting for inflation, of course. And would a mid-engine vette be the only vette available if it is produced?
quote
Originally posted by Threedog:
It is going to be really interesting to see what GM can do when they put all of their resources behind a mid-engine corvette project. In terms of track performance, GM has been smoking competition for the past decade, especially when you control for price.. I have faith they can build an awesome mid-engine Corvette, but the real question is can they do it cheap.
I doubt it will be revealed too soon. They are still fresh on the new Zr1
Oh, do not get me wrong here. There will always be a V8 Vette. But, there will be one available with a four cylinder and a turbo. It will not be the mid engine version.
All I'm gonna say is this, should Chevrolet come out with a mid-engine Corvette, I'll have to start a whole new college fund for any potential grand children. I guess I should man up and advise their parents that they will be own their own.
Not that there's enough there to buy one of those babies but..............................................
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-20-2017).]
They already have the nearly perfect performing Corvette. All they would be doing is copying euro cars like Lamborghini as a fad with behind the driver engines. IF they did make one and still offered the current setup, the current type would outsell the new one by so much, a different one would tank in short order...especially at double the price. This is all for nothing really, as the current Corvettes and all from the last 30 years...are all 'mid engine'. Mid engine is generally defined as powerplant between front and rear axles. To be correct, they are wanting the powerplant behind the driver. I dont know of a tech term that would be correct. Rear engine, like Porsche 911, means powerplant behind/over rear axle.
Mid-engine has meant 'behind driver, in front of rear axle' since forever, until the current crop of advertising guys came up with the 'modern' definition. 50/50 weight distribution is fine when the car is sitting still, but when accelerating, turning or stopping, a rear weight bias is much better.
CAD images of the new Mid engine vette have been released.
From people's best guess, this will by the C8 model line; yes the vette will be switching to mid engine. . .
Yes, the ZR1 has been released. They did that in Dubai recently. I said the convertible. :-)
I do not think they will ever switch to Mid Engine. I believe that both Corvettes we'll run congruently. They will tone down the front engine version somewhat and make it less expensive to broaden the range, while still having both a powerful front and mid-engine car. It's just from what I've been reading, but I'm not going to lie, I have been wrong before. :-) Enjoy your day.
Well, all my inside information sources tell me that if they switch to the mid-engine design, all Vettes will follow suit (this assumes that model sells). So, who do I know you ask.................... No Fricking Body.
That's not to suggest it's actually going to happen but, if offered up, the grandkids college fund is gone.
I was a Corvette repair and restoration shop for years. Everyone I knew with one considered it mid engine. Only millennials or non car people dont. 50/50 weight is best for handling. Rear end bias weight is only good for acceleration like at a drag strip or long straight. You think rear weight bias is better for handling, tell than to any Porsche 911 driver...they can spin out faster than you can blink. I KNOW because Ive had them....they snap like a whip. They are awesome...till theyre not. Without looking under the hood of a GP, I cant tell you where the engine is in relation to the front axle, but ill take a guess its OVER it. If its behind the axle, then yes technically, it would be mid engine = or engine in the middle. Cars that started the mid engine name craze were the GT40, Ferrari, and Lambo. Those iconic cars all had engines behind the driver, so thats what started people calling just those cars mid engine just like Kleenex became the name for tissue.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 12-23-2017).]
Without looking under the hood of a GP, I cant tell you where the engine is in relation to the front axle, but ill take a guess its OVER it. If its behind the axle, then yes technically, it would be mid engine = or engine in the middle.
In my '70, the spindles are in line with the timing cover. It is essentially a stretched A-body frame, with all the additional length between the motor mounts and the A-frames. It has 6" additional wheelbase and 1" wider front track than my GTO. The two cars share a lot of components including, surprisingly, door seal rubbers. My goat has the front sway bar from a TA and I put the sway bar from the goat into the GP. The fan shroud for the GP is the same as the goat with an extension to reach back to the fan. When I swapped cams in the GP, I was able to leave the AC condenser in place. I sat down on a step stool, with my back to the condenser to comfortably install the timing chain and cover, then adjust the rockers.
I was a Corvette repair and restoration shop for years. Everyone I knew with one considered it mid engine. Only millennials or non car people dont. 50/50 weight is best for handling. Rear end bias weight is only good for acceleration like at a drag strip or long straight. You think rear weight bias is better for handling, tell than to any Porsche 911 driver...they can spin out faster than you can blink. I KNOW because Ive had them....they snap like a whip. They are awesome...till theyre not. Without looking under the hood of a GP, I cant tell you where the engine is in relation to the front axle, but ill take a guess its OVER it. If its behind the axle, then yes technically, it would be mid engine = or engine in the middle. Cars that started the mid engine name craze were the GT40, Ferrari, and Lambo. Those iconic cars all had engines behind the driver, so thats what started people calling just those cars mid engine just like Kleenex became the name for tissue.
Mid engine design goes back a lot farther than the cars you quoted, and has been a design must for any competitive road racing car for decades. Corvette owners also consider their cars to be "special", just as they consider themselves "special". The math tells a very different story when it comes to handling and weight distribution.
Admittedly, the modern Corvettes do very well at the track, but there is another important advantage to the engine-behind-driver mid engine design.
As Fiero enthusiasts, we understand the importance of mass centralization. With the weight concentrated close to the yaw axis, it takes less force to change direction. Less torque is required on the yaw axis to start or stop rotation. Up until '88, the long scrub radius negated most all of that advantage on our cars.
I was just discussing this with a friend, he's not a car guy but, he is into old trucks. Not long ago, he restored an antique Cab Over truck. He was pretty happy when I told him that according to Roger, it was a mid-engine.
Now he's talking about taking it auto-crossing.
Rams
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-23-2017).]
I was just discussing this with a friend, he's not a car guy but, he is into old trucks. Not long ago, he restored a Cab Over truck. He was pretty happy when I told him that according to Roger, it was a mid-engine.
Rams
Ha ha! I guess I've driven plenty of 400+hp mid engine vehicles professionally.
OK, ill just go with most customers and both Corvette clubs I was in with both of mine. Not all Corvette owners are car people. Lots of them dont even know how to change spark plugs...or where to even find them. I cant tell you how many of them had to even be shown how to open the hoods.
Your comparing apples and oranges again. Nothing in the discussion has been about trucks. A cab over truck is simply a cab over truck. Front engined ones are called conventional cabs...which typically have the engine in front of the driver. No car has ever been a conventional or cab over car. In Europe they do race semi tractors on road courses, so have at it on track day. If you want to compare it as a car, if the engine is under the cab, like a cab over...it is between axles...so yes it would be mid engine. Its certainly not front or rear engined. My motorhome is rear engine because the engine is behind the rear axles. But again its a totally different vehicle and diff terms apply. Its called a pusher, and others are called conventional.
The cars I mentioned started the fad of being called mid engine, even though there were others before. No matter what anyone has to say, fact is an engine between front and rear axles is mid engined.
To end my part of the discussion, The last 35 years of Corvettes are as close to mid engine that theyre ever going to be in my opinion.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 12-23-2017).]
If you want to compare it as a car, if the engine is under the cab, like a cab over...it is between axles...so yes it would be mid engine. Its certainly not front or rear engined.
Snip
To end my part of the discussion, The last 35 years of Corvettes are as close to mid engine that theyre ever going to be in my opinion.
Roger, I assure you, I understand quite a bit about trucks. But, you did not distinguish that the discussion only applied to cars. Don't get upset about this. Was just using the definition you provided. My goodness, now I'm gonna have to tell my friend he might not be allowed to take his COE auto-crossing. BTW, it's my opinion that mid-engine means between the cabin and the rear axle. But, you know what, opinions are like ____________. Well, like speed limit signs, some folks just ignore them. Yeah, they do. Sounds kind of silly but, that's what I'm told.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-23-2017).]
Just went and eyeballed my c5. The centerline of the front wheels looks to be even with the front of the block, meaning some of the engine is in front of the center line.
For the most part, it is accepted that there are 3 configurations. Front, mid and rear. Front being the most common. I think if you start classifying cars like my vette as mid engine, the mid engine group is going to be the majority
Just went and eyeballed my c5. The centerline of the front wheels looks to be even with the front of the block, meaning some of the engine is in front of the center line.
For the most part, it is accepted that there are 3 configurations. Front, mid and rear. Front being the most common. I think if you start classifying cars like my vette as mid engine, the mid engine group is going to be the majority
I would suggest that some Corvette owners like to "think" of their cars as being mid-engine making them even more special than they already are. I agree that most Corvettes are pretty special but, not mid-engine. The Corvette museum is just outside Bowling Green, KY. Many times when I have visitors, they want to go see it. Been there at least 5 or 6 times in the last 10 to 12 years. I have yet to see anything there describe the Corvette as a mid-engine production car. I look for interesting things while I'm there. Pretty sure I would have noticed that at some point.
Last time I was there, I took more pictures of the old stagecoach than I did of the cars. The exception being those Vettes that took a nose dive into the sink hole. That was ugly.
Just went and eyeballed my c5. The centerline of the front wheels looks to be even with the front of the block, meaning some of the engine is in front of the center line.
For the most part, it is accepted that there are 3 configurations. Front, mid and rear. Front being the most common. I think if you start classifying cars like my vette as mid engine, the mid engine group is going to be the majority
Welp, there's a lot of difference, imo, between having the engine's center of gravity in front of the front axle or behind it...enough that it shouldn't be classified as the same.
Welp, there's a lot of difference, imo, between having the engine's center of gravity in front of the front axle or behind it...enough that it shouldn't be classified as the same.
I like to think of it as a close second to a "true" mid engine, like the fiero.
If you want to classify it as a front mid, I can accept that, it specifies that it is still a front engine car. But to just say mid engine, it usually implies engine behind the driver.
Rams, I may go this summer. I am more interested in visiting the track, but might as well check out the museum while there.
