From here:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=43816

go to here

http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml#table

and you will be able to read this;

======================================== ================
The Corvette C7. Publisher's Note: There's a furious debate going on in the halls of GM as you read this. The subject? The fate of the next-generation Corvette C7. On one side are the mid-engine Corvette boosters, who are absolutely convinced that the time has finally come for Corvette to become a mid-engined sports car. On the other side are the people who believe that taking the Corvette to a mid-engine configuration would immediately destroy the performance- for-the-dollar quotient, the one hallmark the Corvette has been famous for almost since Day One. After driving Audi's R8 this week, I tend to agree with the "keep Corvette front-engined" faction. The R8 is a very nice car, but just how many six-figure sports cars can exist in the U.S. market, and do so profitably? Look for the debate to go this way: The next-generation Corvette will still be front-engined, but it will be even lighter than the current car and have more than one engine option - including a new, small-displacement, aluminum V-8 to go along with yet another development of the current V-8. This car will be the mainstream Corvette that will still deliver on its performance-for-the-dollar imperative. But wait, that's not all. Then look for an extremely limited production run (less than 500) of an advanced, mid-engined Corvette that will play in the plus six-figure category - and deliver blistering performance that will surpass exotic sports cars from around the world costing hundreds of thousands more. This will be the technological "statement" car from GM that the "True Believers" within the corporation have long been waiting for. You read it here first, folks. - PMD
======================================== ================

What do we know so far?

Introduction date - Model year 2011
One of the engines: LS8
Left and right drive (Britain, Japan, Australia) versions

Likely:
Aluminum frame
Lot's of magnesium - both subframes and some powertrain
polycarbonate replaces some glass
direct injection

Possible:
new family of 8-speed automatics

For expensive models (e.g. Z06)
some limited use of titanium and carbon fibre

 

Thanks for the post!

 

Interesting speculation and entirely plausible. Although I'll be curious what it/they look like, how they're configured and their performance numbers....be sure to let me when and where I can put a deposit down on either version. Thanks for sharing the SWAG.

 

The C7, due in another 48 months or so, is the big reason why I cannot get excited about a measly 25HP increase in the '08 C6.

 

Mid-engine would be so awesome!

BUT... I don't know how it would work from a styling perspective if continuity of shape is desired by GM. I know I love the classic long hood and wedge shape of the car. A mid-engine setup would not have that...

 

 

The C6 has been around for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Next we have
2008. Then there will be 2009 and 2010. If I were GM, I'd keep things
the same for a while before making big changes. If they are going to
give the C6 a mid-life upgrade, it must be done in 2008. To dismiss
this upgrade as simply a few HP is a mistake, in my opinion. The
LS3 is a very different engine than the LS2. Three-valve heads can be
made to flow a lot of air. Having VVT and DOD would be great. Just
select competition mode and the DOD is disabled. If they put DI on
the LS3, then things are even better. That's just the engine. Some people
dread those items. They probably also dreaded the loss of the carburetor.
Yes, new items have bugs but being a luddite is too much.

Also, people say GM can't undermine the Z06 or offend other Corvette
owners by making the LS3 too good. The world is much, much bigger
than this little community. There is competition from everywhere. The
base models account for 80% of sales. That's the bread and butter.
GM better keep the base models competitive or the C6 market is never
going to crawl out of the toilet. Others say to buy now, you may be
dead tomorrow. While being totally **** retentive isn't recommended,
being a mindlessly impulsive buyer isn't something that I would recommend
either.

I'm not necessarily aiming these comments at you ...

 

The same "rumor" circulates about the Corvette about every 20 years.

The Corvette already has 50/50 weight distribution. There may be a small advantage to having the weight more centralized, but the trade offs would not be worth it, in my opinion. And if the car gets any more expensive than it is, I'm out anyway.

As it is, I will not likely be buying another convertible simply due to pricing. They are forcing us to pay for a lot of equipment in order to get some of the "basics". Paying any more to get a mid-engine car is not worth it to me.

 

I think I'll hold on to my 07 until a major change comes along.

 

Very interesting. I hope the C7 is to the C6 like the C6 was to the C5. An across the board improvement. One thing they should focus on is reliability.

 

live for today, we could all be dead by then

 

 

The rumors of the "next" Corvette being a mid-engine platform are older than many of the forum members are.

 

Interesting read.I remember the scuttlebut starting on the c6 in the latter years of the c5..For now,all I can say for sure is that me and my 05 c6 are very happy together!

 

Add me to the agreement list. If Zora had gotten his way, there is at least a 50% chance Corvette would no longer be with us. Without 22.4 cu. ft. in the back, Corvette would no longer be the Grand Tourer it is now and that would knock out a good portion of the market base.

 

 

Luddite or not, you've got enuff acronyms in there that I have no idea what you're talking about. Then again, maybe it's not written for the pedestrian types like me.

Oh and one of the reasons people dreaded the coming of fuel injection may have little to do with a love of carburetion. And a whole lot more to do with the original, mechanical fuel injection with all its attendant problems that weren't "solved" until car engine design took some big leaps. Like computers, electronic fuel injection, etc. Even some of the first "electronically controlled" fuel injection designs such as at Volvo, weren't very inexpensive to maintain.

 

 

There would be virtually no advantage going to a mid engine design in a car that is already at 50/50.

 

One advantage of going mid/rear engine would be aerodynamics. The car would be lower in height and could have a smooth under tray with built in extractors.