yz250fPilot

Not true.

runamuk

Is this a photoshop job? thats mean looking

boxerperson

what exactly is so hard to design about a mid-engine car?

I can't see anything that would make it more expensive to create, own, operate, or work on.

All Chevy would have to do is develop it intelligently. Make the engine easy to access. Which end it's on shouldn't make much difference. I can see no reason at all why it should inherently cost more.

Correct me if I'm wrong engineers (i dont have my degree quite yet)

Is there anything especially hard about making the front of the car (where the trunk would be) crash efficient? I would think that without the burden of keeping the engine out of people's laps, the front crashworthyness would be even better, with a well designed crumple zone (better to have your luggege crushed than your engine!!!)



I guess I just dont see any disadvantages?

I knew there would be a lot of "no it's corvette don't change it" because this is a die-hard corvette board....but how about we just look at it objectively. What are the challenges? The trade-offs? The benefits? Is there really any reason it would be more expensive?



*****EDIT*****

This is the angle I dislike. I think it makes the headlights look uneven, and the front of the car far too long in the nose. I just dislike the shape. It's still a beautiful car...but...that nose...is just....really big.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/atta...entid=47581725

TetraU

It would be the stupidest idea for GM to change the Corvette to to mid-engine design. It is first of all debatable which orientation is better suited for racing. But most importantly, it will be a most expensive change. Every part of the car except the engine parts are going to be different. The new design would no economic sense what so ever. Much of the C5 parts are still being used in the C6, with some of them slightly altered. Now if you change it to a mid-engine desgin, you would not only have to change the most of the parts, you would also have to change the tolling, the whole production line. It would indeed be a brand-killing idea.

Scissors

The fact that they'd have to design a chassis from scratch would make it more expensive. It would be more expensive to own because of the increase in labor costs for working on it. Working on it is harder because the packaging is tighter and makes access harder.

You also lose a great deal of luggage space. And noise from the engine is more of a problem. You also lose passenger space, especially in the footwell.

robvuk

It costs just shy of $300 for an oil change on a Boxster. And they call this superior engineering.

boxerperson

You don't get what I'm saying.

That's a porsche. Not a corvette. Of course it's going to be exorbitantly expensive to do anything with it, even if it's the bottom rung model. That's what makes them so "endearing"

What is so difficult about putting the engine in the back? I don't see why it would be any harder to access, if designed the way the front was. Just have a hood in the back that opens and makes working on the car exactly the same as if it were in front.....no need for fancy packaging and crap. Exotics, many of which have the engine in the back, are expensive to work on because they're exotics and designed in such a way that it makes it very difficult to work on.

Also.....you can bet that the next corvette chassis is going to be designed from the ground up anyways. They've been using the same one since 1997. So that point is really kind of moot.


So....anyone here owned a toyota MR2? MR-S? perhaps a Fierro? Those are mid-engine, and not expensive at all.


I'm still waiting for some engineers to respond

pgeho

The major complaint I've heard (at least out on the streets of New Orleans, is that the light pods are gone replaced by the visible lights - only to please the damn Europeans. So my point obviously is keep it designed for American audiences. That's that is was designed for in the first place. Personally, the first thing I'll do (assuming the Z is actually affordable) is find someone to opaque out those lights and give it back it's look from the C5. Anyway...

I'm not opposed to change if the change increases the car's abilities - the trunk in the front and rear engine design is tantalizing - and perhaps around the C9 or C10 (if it lasts that long with GM's current financial situation) it might be considered. Me? I'd vote for more torque or better power translation from flywheel to rear wheels - there's got to be a way to do that sensibly and affordably. However in the long run, I just don't think GM will change the car that much unless finances change and that's the rub IMO.

32valves

the answer is simple if you look at the profile of a sportscar. there is more space at the rear of a wedge shape. That's why in a space limited vehicle it is preferable to put the luggage area there. You can put a "trunk" over a transmission and rear end and have plenty of cargo area left. If the engine is in the back of the car, the trunk area has to now be put into a small compartment in the front making the car much less livable as a daily driver. One of the reasons a vette is so affordable is that it can be the only car you own and therefore sell in much greater quantity as compared to other sportscars. Things like how much room for groceries and rear visability are much more important for a corvette than say for a ford gt or 360 modena. Furthermore since we are talking about street cars as opposed to race cars, there is a lot of performance left on the table regardless of the basic design. In other words since cars don't come riding on race slicks with rock hard suspension settings anyway, why would you give up usabilty for some perceived gain in performance?

Scissors

Because it's not the same.

For example, with a front-mid layout you can have the engine in front and the transmission and differential in the rear. With a rear-mid engine layout you have to shove it all together. And not only that, but you have to do it in a part of the car that has a taller deck height (making working in the engine bay harder to do) as cars are taller in the rear than in the front for several obvious reasons.

And, again, it's worse in regards to engine noise.

runamuk

Not to mention now you have to find a way to keep the passenger compartment cool since you have this humongous heat generator mounted right next to the driver.

GM did develp a mid engine Corvette prototype, next time your at the museum go check it out, that thing would never sell

christopher04z06

From an engineering and cost perspective, consider you may need to route cooling equipment to the front of the car for airflow - or add protruding body moldings in rear. Remember that you want to cool the radiator, oil, and intake. Any time you ship fluids from rear to front and back you add cost and flow resistance. If you do mount a radiator up front, you're affecting the luggage space even more as mentioned.

Crash safety has got to be another concern especially head-on/offset which will add cost and/or weight to the front.

Yes, mid-engines add rear weight for off-corner acceleration but that's one way to skin the cat. Z06 using larger rear tires and mounting the transmission rear-ward can close that gap. So can careful shock valving. Friction is influenced by the weight, coeff of friction, and area/contact-patch so better tires and more patch can be effective on Z06 - which they did.

As mentioned too, consider your market? The average sports car driver is not a professional and that extra moment of inertia at the limit can get someone killed quickly. I often like to consider the combination of my skills and the Z06 to have a higher product than they would in a Porsche/Ford-GT/Ferrari/etc. The Z06 makes me look better

...Chris
I'm no ME, just a EE that loves Corvettes.

vetterlatethannever

Sorry, I'm no engineer.....

But then that long nose you are hollering about would be in the rear of the car, that, would be ugly........

vetterlatethannever

Disclaimer... This is just a joke please don't get mad at me for dong this. I just had a vision and thought what the heck!!

Ladies and gentlemen!! Without further ado... We are pleased to inroduce the world's first mid engined and rear trunk hatch.......
Corvette!!!!


Again, this is a chop gone awful wrong, not intended to offend anyone.

Retired GM Engr

And, I AM an ME with a bit of automotive experience (31 yrs). That doesn't make me an overall "expert".
I've never been a "Corvette lover". They're just OK. All right, the C5 Z06 is a "little better".
The General does some "extra" rear end crash testing that would make a "mid-engine" design very difficult to execute.

Let's look at this mid-engine design stuff. The '65-'69 Corvair was an excellent handling car with it's fairly light weight unit body, "real" independent real suspension, and decent power in "up" version. Think Yenko Stinger. That was a very competent (and often class-winning) SCCA road racer. I was involved making the '65 Vair meet the new crashworthiness standards (front and rear) that came in '66. It did improve the car's safety A LOT over the '60-'64 car. It was NOT easy to do.

Now, redo the whole concept with current technology, and some high-zoot styling. Sounds good, eh? Oops, what made the Corvair work was a light weight air-cooled opposed six in the "trunk", with no "cooling transfer" problems, but still had terrible luggage space. And, how do you get 505 hp? What do you have ? A bad Porsche copy ?

Everybody will be absolutely "thrilled" with the "low-end torque", and the "deep throaty" exhaust sound.
Marketing slogan will be "Not high HP, but handling and power-to-weight ratio is PRETTY GOOD, DUDE!!!"
Yeah, GM will sell a lot of those.

And, don't tell me about those kits with the adapters to put a small-block ahead of the Corvair trans-axle, that is, in the back seat. You end up being part of the "crush zone" for that 600 pound engine/transaxle in a frontal crash.
Can-Am "sports cars" had ZL1 big-blocks and "worked". On the TRACK only. A lot of fun, though.
Dean Martin's son had a Lola T70 "endurance racer" (Can-AM with roof) converted to "street-legal". Right.

People will say "Proper" design could "eliminate" these concerns, and still have a V8 ahead of the axle for a two-seater, and what do you have ? Sounds like a Ferrari clone to me. And, a lot of pain. The people packaging and structural problems are simply terrible for an FMVSS legal and customer acceptable street car. Meaning a real daily driver, not a "Design Label" car for the rich people to show to their rich friends, out in their 8-car garage. Ever wonder why so many "high-end Sxxt" cars sell at Barret-Jackson with hardly any miles ?

The killer is, in return for all this time, effort, and budget, what's in it for the General ?

You have a rear-engine Porche or mid-engine Ferrari clone, can't make it for the same cost as current,
and probably DON'T EVEN CAPTURE AS MANY CUSTOMERS.
Not good. I want my pension to keep coming.

PS:
Oh yeah, I can put two golf bags and plenty of soft weekend luggage in my '04 Z06 Z16,
and have a blast "running" the mountain roads over to a condo weekend at Sedona with "the Sweety".
The valet and bag boys are still mildly impressed. As in drooling.
Cost new out the door was 43 large + TTL. $71 Mobil 1 oil changes at the dealer. 13k miles in 11 months.
I haven't checked out "that value" lately for the mid-engine "hot shots". Have you ?

lowellmstevens

50/50 weight distribution couldn't be more optimal on the track. front bias produces understeer, while rear bias produces oversteer. sliding around corners (believe it or not) is NOT the fastest way around any track. if you really feel like the vette should have a rearward bias then just sit in it. the only carmaker i know of that accounts for the fact that there is usually an extra 150 pounds or more when the car is being driven is ferrari. if you look at the 575m you can see that the rear of the car sits rather high. wonder why? its so that when you sit in the car it is either 50/50 or slightly rear biased. its no coincidence that most carmakers producing sports car shoot for a 50/50, or atleast close too it. "well porsche,ferrari,lambo... all those guys put their engines in the rear" yeah ok, but check the tire sizes on those cars. the difference between tire width from front to rear is huge, this being an effort to offset the rearward bias. and even then, alot of those engines are on or infront of the rear axle. porsche however mounts their engine behind the rear axle. which the offset by adding larger front tires, and taking advantage of the added availible traction by having weight over the propelling wheels.

as far as why it would cost more to relocate the engine, just look at everyone elses post. the car would have to be made from scratch. thats ALOT of money to make a totally new car, when the current corvette is fine.its already mid engined,rear mounted transmission,and passenger seating right in the middle. if you want the rear-mounted engine in a corvette, just throw it in reverse and turn the seat around.

aharte

That's marketing BS. All purpose-built race cars made in the last 30 or 40 years have been rear or mid-engined unless class rules required otherwise. This meant they were all strongly rear-biased. Add to that that most upper end sports cars also have a rear weight bias. It doesn't matter that the front-rear tire sizes are different (Corvettes hardly have identical tires either, btw). The design clearly works. It allows much better braking, and the cars can power out of turns earlier. You also get a lower moment of inertia with a mid-engined design.

Your comments on the Ferrari make no sense. The height of the rear has nothing to do with the weight distribution. It sits high for styling and aerodynamic reasons.

Despite saying all of that, I don't think that Corvettes should switch over to a mid-engined design. The V8 engine would have to be retained for marketing reasons, and that would require too many compromises at the required price-point. The resulting car would also not look anything like previous corvettes. I like the long nose.

Thud

Yeah I think it's been talked about since the early 1970's.

lowellmstevens

greenshirt77

The ground-up re-design point is not moot as long as GM hasn't announced a plan to do so, which they have not.
Ground-up re-design or not for the C7, I wouldn't bet on it being a mid-engine.
The point in regards to the MR2 and Fiero doesn't hold water, as those cars were designed from the get go to be that way. They are/were cheap because they were designed to be affordable. The expense to design and build a car has nothing to do with engine placement.
And no, I'm not an engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.