Would you consider the C6 a mid-engine car?
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Would you consider the C6 a mid-engine car?
My understanding of a mid-engine car is the engine center line must be between the front and rear axles. Clearly this is the case with a C6, it would be a front mid-engine. Your rarely hear of a C6's drivetrain layout described in such a way. Does the engine have to be in back of the passenger cabin to be a true mid-engine car?
What do you think?
What do you think?
#2
Safety Car
It technically is a mid engine, but most folks won't agree to that unless the engine is behind the driver for some reason. I'm totally lost on what the appeal for a future generation rear mid engine Corvette, as the only reason to do a mid is balance, and the car is already at 50/50.
#4
Team Owner
It technically is a mid engine, but most folks won't agree to that unless the engine is behind the driver for some reason. I'm totally lost on what the appeal for a future generation rear mid engine Corvette, as the only reason to do a mid is balance, and the car is already at 50/50.
But to your second point - being 50/50 is not the same as moving more of the weight to a central point. Think about a long rod with ten lb weights at each end as opposed to a 20 lb weight right in the middle. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms, but the effect on the rotation of the rod will be completely different when you spin it. Same with a car going around a curve. If the car begins to rotate (lose traction at the rear specifically) the weight at the rear of the car will develop more momentum than if the weight was near the middle of the car.
Last edited by jschindler; 05-07-2010 at 11:36 AM.
#5
Le Mans Master
First of all, let me say that I agree that I don't really care if it's a "true" mid engine or not. Mid engine cars give up a lot of real world passenger and luggage functionality.
But to your second point - being 50/50 is not the same has moving more of the weight to a central point. Think about a long rod with ten lb weights at each end as opposed to a 20 lb weight right in the middle. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms, but the effect on the rotation of the rod will be completely different when you spin it. Same with a car going around a curve. If the car begins to rotate (lose traction at the rear specifically) the weight at the rear of the car will develop more momentum than if the weight was near the middle of the car.
But to your second point - being 50/50 is not the same has moving more of the weight to a central point. Think about a long rod with ten lb weights at each end as opposed to a 20 lb weight right in the middle. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms, but the effect on the rotation of the rod will be completely different when you spin it. Same with a car going around a curve. If the car begins to rotate (lose traction at the rear specifically) the weight at the rear of the car will develop more momentum than if the weight was near the middle of the car.
Go drive a true mid-engine car and the differences are apparent.
#6
Advanced
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that mid-engine would be better for handling and coolness-factor reasons. It would make the Corvette more exotic and with an upgraded interior, more able to compete directly with imports. If the sales go down or stay the same, this would help justify a large increase in cost per car.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the current configuration is far more practical in most ways - luggage and interior space being class leaders for sure. I am guessing it is far easier to maintain our cars, cheaper to produce (easier to share driveline components) etc.
I think the C6 does a fantastic job of actually looking like a rear-mid engine exotic without actually being one, so the looks thing is largely irrelevant. The Boxster is mid-engine with a decent amount of luggage space, so I suppose that is doable.
There are always trade-offs, although I think a rear mid-engine would be cool. I am willing to bet we would have to give up usable luggage area, interior volume, and $$$$$ in higher cost.
Is it worth it?
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the current configuration is far more practical in most ways - luggage and interior space being class leaders for sure. I am guessing it is far easier to maintain our cars, cheaper to produce (easier to share driveline components) etc.
I think the C6 does a fantastic job of actually looking like a rear-mid engine exotic without actually being one, so the looks thing is largely irrelevant. The Boxster is mid-engine with a decent amount of luggage space, so I suppose that is doable.
There are always trade-offs, although I think a rear mid-engine would be cool. I am willing to bet we would have to give up usable luggage area, interior volume, and $$$$$ in higher cost.
Is it worth it?
#8
Moderator
Member Since: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
Posts: 40,065
Received 3,578 Likes
on
1,619 Posts
First of all, let me say that I agree that I don't really care if it's a "true" mid engine or not. Mid engine cars give up a lot of real world passenger and luggage functionality.
But to your second point - being 50/50 is not the same as moving more of the weight to a central point. Think about a long rod with ten lb weights at each end as opposed to a 20 lb weight right in the middle. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms, but the effect on the rotation of the rod will be completely different when you spin it. Same with a car going around a curve. If the car begins to rotate (lose traction at the rear specifically) the weight at the rear of the car will develop more momentum than if the weight was near the middle of the car.
But to your second point - being 50/50 is not the same as moving more of the weight to a central point. Think about a long rod with ten lb weights at each end as opposed to a 20 lb weight right in the middle. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms, but the effect on the rotation of the rod will be completely different when you spin it. Same with a car going around a curve. If the car begins to rotate (lose traction at the rear specifically) the weight at the rear of the car will develop more momentum than if the weight was near the middle of the car.
#11
Melting Slicks
#12
Race Director
NO! Corvette is front engine, rear wheel drive. Some Advertizing geek decided that mid engine sounds trick so......
Mid engine means exactly that, engine in the middle of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then engine, then rear wheels.
Porche Boxter, Ford GT, etc
Front engine means engine in the front of the car;
Front wheels, then engine, then driver, then rear wheels.
Corvette and most others.
Rear engine means engine in the rear of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then rear wheels, then engine.
Porche 911 and ?
These are the same Advertizing geeks that want to call the Corvette construction a Space Frame when it's a Body on Frame.
Mid engine means exactly that, engine in the middle of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then engine, then rear wheels.
Porche Boxter, Ford GT, etc
Front engine means engine in the front of the car;
Front wheels, then engine, then driver, then rear wheels.
Corvette and most others.
Rear engine means engine in the rear of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then rear wheels, then engine.
Porche 911 and ?
These are the same Advertizing geeks that want to call the Corvette construction a Space Frame when it's a Body on Frame.
#13
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 46,104
Received 2,481 Likes
on
1,944 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
"In honor of jpee"
I agree that a true mid-engine car is an exotic in some ways and improves handling to a degree. But there is a cost and usually it's in access to engine or carrying (luggage) space. From what I've learned about the Boxster, a true mid engine car, is that it was designed for ease of access, but that still requires dropping the engine down.
Simple, easy, refined, pushed to the limit is where I'd like to see Corvette go. There was a time when I really liked the mid-engine potential, but I don't think it's needed. I'm not even sure the former "Northstar" engine was a type to be considered for the Corvette, but I wouldn't. This, despite the fact that it is a result of the LT5 used in the early 1990s ZR-1.
Simple, easy, refined, pushed to the limit is where I'd like to see Corvette go. There was a time when I really liked the mid-engine potential, but I don't think it's needed. I'm not even sure the former "Northstar" engine was a type to be considered for the Corvette, but I wouldn't. This, despite the fact that it is a result of the LT5 used in the early 1990s ZR-1.
#14
Team Owner
Check out the Ford GT(not the mustang). It has 1 cubic foot of storage space in the front. Awesome looking car, but not very practical for an over night trip, and forget about a week long trip to Yellowstone.
#15
Team Owner
Front engine, not remotely mid.
#16
Team Owner
The Corvette is a front engine, rear wheel drive vehicle as classified by GM and Corvette engineers. Don't go by the Wikipedia definition of "mid engine" or you will begin to think that 90% of the cars on the road today are mid engine.
#17
Team Owner
NO! Corvette is front engine, rear wheel drive. Some Advertizing geek decided that mid engine sounds trick so......
Mid engine means exactly that, engine in the middle of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then engine, then rear wheels.
Porche Boxter, Ford GT, etc
Front engine means engine in the front of the car;
Front wheels, then engine, then driver, then rear wheels.
Corvette and most others.
Rear engine means engine in the rear of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then rear wheels, then engine.
Porche 911 and ?
These are the same Advertizing geeks that want to call the Corvette construction a Space Frame when it's a Body on Frame.
Mid engine means exactly that, engine in the middle of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then engine, then rear wheels.
Porche Boxter, Ford GT, etc
Front engine means engine in the front of the car;
Front wheels, then engine, then driver, then rear wheels.
Corvette and most others.
Rear engine means engine in the rear of the car;
Front wheels, then driver, then rear wheels, then engine.
Porche 911 and ?
These are the same Advertizing geeks that want to call the Corvette construction a Space Frame when it's a Body on Frame.
2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Aluminum Spaceframe Design and Engineering Technology
Or those nutcases at Dana Engineering (you know, the folks that actually build the Z06 frame) as well.
Lightweight All-Aluminum Spaceframe
#18
Instructor
Member Since: May 2009
Location: St Pete Beach Florida
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turned a corner in the rain (C6 '05) and accelerated a bit too much, spun out rear wheels and will say it is definitely NOT a front engine car. No front end inertia working to straighten out this puppy. Fortunately, brakes worked and stopped before hitting powerpole on side, but for an instant, tried to drive out of it and it wouldn't work.
#19
Team Owner
Turned a corner in the rain (C6 '05) and accelerated a bit too much, spun out rear wheels and will say it is definitely NOT a front engine car. No front end inertia working to straighten out this puppy. Fortunately, brakes worked and stopped before hitting powerpole on side, but for an instant, tried to drive out of it and it wouldn't work.
Some front engine vehicles from the 80's and 90's were as high as 58/42 weight distribution and many of the heavier modern cars (like the 2010 Camaro 52/48 and Mustang 54/46) would give you the feel you are after but with the light weight and 51/49 on the base coupe and convertible you lose a lot of that effect.
#20
Safety Car