When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The idea has been toyed with and even probably experimented on by Zora and GM many years ago...Nowadays with tech being what it is I'm sure we will see one. However,CORVETTE is not an every man's sports car anymore as it sits right now with prices over 100 grand and some and up in the 70's and 80' on others.So unless I hit the lottery I won't be seeing one in my garage and furthermore,at prices over 100 grand,I'd be looking at Porsche.and other "exotica" out there.There is no Chevy worth over 100 grand to me...
Last edited by not08crmanymore; May 22, 2016 at 09:58 PM.
From: Currently somewhere in IL,IN,KY,TN,MO,AR,MS,AL, or FL
Originally Posted by ruxvette
Sure, some have failed.
See Corvair, Delorean, etc.
But, Porsche, NSX, GT40, Audi R8, Ferrari, etc...rear mid-engine cars.
Or, Nissan 370, Miata, etc...front mid-engine cars.
Just sayin...
The purpose of mid-engine is to get closer to a 50/50 weight distribution which results in better handling. None of the cars you mentioned have 50/50 as the C5-C7 Corvette does. That's why the Corvette handles better than those you mentioned. BTW, those you mentioned that are 35/65 or worse should really just be called rear engine. To get 50/50 you would have to put the engine/transmission in the actual middle of the car with the driver almost over the front wheels. Straight line acceleration and braking are better with the weight on the rear but the Corvette and "real" sports cars are more than just drag strip numbers. A mid-engine Corvette would be a high powered Corvair Monza Spyder with no luggage space.
The purpose of mid-engine is to get closer to a 50/50 weight distribution which results in better handling...
We can certainly agree to disagree. 50/50, in and of itself, does not necessarily result in better handling. First off, the weight should be between the axles. Also important is the center of gravity (lengthwise) of the car.
There are a lot of cars (Miata, RX8, BMW, MB, Cad XLR, Corvette) that are within 1% of being 50/50.
I like the concept of a mid-engine Corvette, but at $80,000 I won't be buying one. I really don't want the Corvette to go up so much in price. I'd rather it stay as it is if going mid-engine means such a hike in price.
Anyway, nearly every generation of Corvette spawned rumors of a mid-engine layout, which never happened. It's just as likely to be the same in this case, going by past experience.
We can certainly agree to disagree. 50/50, in and of itself, does not necessarily result in better handling. First off, the weight should be between the axles. Also important is the center of gravity (lengthwise) of the car.
There are a lot of cars (Miata, RX8, BMW, MB, Cad XLR, Corvette) that are within 1% of being 50/50.
Anyone that doesn't agree with this should Google "Polar Moment of Inertia".
The purpose of mid-engine is to get closer to a 50/50 weight distribution which results in better handling. None of the cars you mentioned have 50/50 as the C5-C7 Corvette does. That's why the Corvette handles better than those you mentioned. BTW, those you mentioned that are 35/65 or worse should really just be called rear engine. To get 50/50 you would have to put the engine/transmission in the actual middle of the car with the driver almost over the front wheels. Straight line acceleration and braking are better with the weight on the rear but the Corvette and "real" sports cars are more than just drag strip numbers. A mid-engine Corvette would be a high powered Corvair Monza Spyder with no luggage space.
Prior to my C6 I had a Porsche Boxster. It was 50/50, and handled WORLDS better than the C6. It had less horsepower, so not as fast but took mountain roads better than anything else I've driven. As far as storage goes, it had a trunk in the back and a 'frunk' in the front. The engine was mounted just forward of the rear wheels, not in the center of the car as suggested. If the engine design was a bit better, and hadn't blown up, I would still be driving it today.
GM did just trademark the ZR1 logo on May 16 th 2016.....so I'm guessing they plan on using it in the next couple of years.... The past models trademark was ZR-1 for C3s and C4s.....then ZR1 for the C6(without the hyphen) but they had actually cancelled that trademark.....so if they wanted it back, the perfect use would be an all out super car, mid engine with two front wheel electric motors like the wicked Porsche that has been developed, which will have no manual tranny option.....but they gotta leave the regular man's vette out there tho..... That's what made the car great, and loved by generations .........