LTC Z06

There's nothing wrong with it, the C5 was very light and extremly stiff; and evolution doesn't mean "not redesigned." The C6 is a new car.

ApexOversteer

We hear this "Mid Engine Vette Coming Next Time" rumor every time they begin to look at building a new one, and have since the '60s....

Z-Rated

you are so right !

quick04Z06

I did not read all of the posts, but the Corvette already is mid-engined. A mid-engined car is one with the engine between the axles. The Vette engine is fully behind the front axle.

1969Vette383

Mentioned in post #6.

cmeflibi

the z06 is borderline exotic though. I think that since they are wooping up on all the exotic's they probly want to make it one . I disagree however because don't fix something that isn't broke. It would defy the point of an AMERICAN muscle car. Most vette owners put stuff in their trunk too, it seems like some drive them every day also like me. Whats next a mid engine viper?

I agree with what was said above, they have been scrapping the idea of a mid engine for years.

Something that would be cool is a AWD vette. I think that would be pretty sick, but fun to fix! and all the extra weight would cancel it.

Gm is obviously doing something right, the new z06 is stomping competition left and right. I see a bounch of german and italian engineers scratching their head somewhere

Vette-kid

I guess this is only slightly related, but i wouldnt consider the vette a muscle car, as per the above post. The Mustang, Charger, GTO, those are muscle cars. Corvette, GT40, 911, Ferrari, those are sports cars. considerably different class. I think however you are right, GM would do well to continue with a distinctly Amercan design. It part of the allure of the vette, to show that America can engineer something to compete with high end European cars without copying their design. thats why in the past, mid engine designs as well as TT V6's, and extic multi cam designs have been droppped. The small block V8 is distinctly American, as is the front (or technically mid engine, as someone pointed out) rear drive . I think that they will alienate a lot of the current target market if they stray far from the current layout. but thats just my .02, and they arent really asking my opinion
but it would be cool to see a limited prod. exotic

Wide_One

There's more to it here ....I won't buy another Vet until it becomes a mid engine the c5 and c6 are more "dumb bell" than all the other years. Included is to much weight on a live axle and the center balance is simply moved to each end of a beam. The only way the vet is to become world class is to make the mid engine. Remember the days when most of us raced slot cars if you built a slot car with the scaled down weights of a c5 or a c6 there would be no chance of beating a c1 c2 c3 or c4 let alone a mid engine. The later models are basically made for the portly american buying public who are happy with less than world class.....ever wonder why europe and japan have little interest in the present car. I know everyone thinks c5/6 is great but if they were put against a serious mid engine would be like racing nascar where trucks can be made to handle and making horse power is never an issue.

Racer X

I don't even know where to start. I wish some of the automotive engineers or physicists on here would comment. For a street car a front midengined car design is superior. Each aspect of a cars performance has an optinmal solution that is different, so the final result has to be a compromise.

For braking a a rear weght bias is desirable so that when the center of gravity (CG) shifts forward at maxium braking the front and back brakes are utilized equally. This will maximize braking performance. Will also cause the car to tend toward oversteer at the limits, dangerous for the street and 99% of the drivers.

For acceleration, again a rear bias is good for a rear drive car for traction, with the same oversteer problems. Oh and you want your wheel base to be long and the CG to be a bit higher to increase the CG shift to the rear. ForAWD cars a front bias will equalize the traction front to back on maxium acceleration.

For the maxium lateral acceleration and agility, you want a short wheelbase as low a CG as possible with a roll center that is below the car, and a wide wheelbase. Ideally the engine, transmission, and passengers would be at the CG. That would llike raise the CG as you stacked them all. Of course areodynamics would also go out the window, engine cooling and servicing would be compromised and directional stability likewise compromised.

Top speed and fuel economy would like a small frontal area with no openings. Narrow track for aerodyanmics, long wheelbase for directional stability,

For safety, you would like the engine and other mass ahead of the passenger compartment. As front collions are normally the most severe, you don't want the passenger compartment between the mass of the car and the object being collided with.

For a street car, a front mid-engined layout is ideal, if you can get a slight rear weight bias with passengers. The vehicle dynamics are safer, the crash protection is better, and the car is more likely to be at maxium braking and acceleration than at maximum lateral acceleration.

For a race car, that doesn't have to worry about passengers, vastly varying road surfaces, cost constrainst for crash protection, and can have 5 point belts, and hahn's devices, and inconvenient crash structures.

Oh, and the Corvette hasn't had a "live axle" since 1962.

Tom400CFI

That post was laughable. Horse power is never an issue in NASCAR?? LOL. A C1 -1-3-or 4 has a better weight layout than a 5 or 6?

Do you know how many european cars have a front/mid engine layout and a rear transaxle? Ferrari 599?

Wide_One

You will never get it!!! nascar has the potential to make more than they run ....lots of european cars have that layout and are luxury sedans, and it's much different having a "mid-engine" than an aged front engine botched trans axle......how many c5's and c6's do you think europe will buy? Futher more ....you will not see a c5 or 6 being driven off a high speed corner at or around 200 mph and don't say c6r because it's nothing like a reg c6. The post right behind mine is right on you are at the turkey farm with most u.s minded sports car ????? And do you think the "superior" c5/6 design can beat a nascar truck around a track? which means nothing but is a point. So for low-med speed handling any platform can be competitive. The best thing the c6/5 has going is wide-track and wide tires (c6z06) which is kinda old tech too.

Vette-kid

I dont think there can be any doubt that the C5 was the best overall performing corvette ever made when it came out, and the C6 has now moved into that position. Could the General make a car that turns out better #'s with a different config...sure. but I think the real debate is deeper than that. Hasnt the goal of the corvette always been to build a high performance car that is still affordable by "normal" people? And wouldnt the technology to build a true mid or rear engine design srivve the cost way up? You dont see too many 20 and 30 something guys who make $40-$50k a year driving ferrari's and lambo's, as you do with the vette. I think that is as much the allure of the vette as the distinctly American engineering...the fact that it has remained so much more affordable than the cars it competes with. And it looks to me like the platform is holding its own in a race modified version...so why would GM change it? Im admit im no expert, and maybe im missing something, but it seems they are doing well with this config and it part of what makes it a vette. so as long as they continue to refine it, keep the config. Does anyone think that a mid eng design would sell as well here in the US as the current design? And didnt they sell out of Japan's allotment of vettes in the first month? sure it was only like 100 cars but it still appears that they do like them over there.

LTC Z06

One more time, The C4/5/6 is a MID ENGINED car. A front mid-engined car. Some of y'alls arguments are mute.

LTC Z06

So front mid-engine with rear tranny/diff an wide tires is old tech???!!! I guess you need to call up a lot of other car companies and inform them of this new info. Explain please.

LTC Z06

Engine location does not make a car expensive or less expensive. What the company charges for the car is what makes the euro exotics expensive.

welcome2try

Just look at the GT1 Le mans results, Corvette 5 wins out of the last 6. Why fix something that ain't broke.

32valves

A better question is, why would anyone argue against a mid-engine super vette (I know, the covette IS mid-engined )? Worried about trunk space?

KILR-RYD

So you saying that the eurotics are not worth the price tag??

Well I disagree, I think they are, if GM can charge 80k for the Z06, a 175k F430 isnt that far fetched considering everything in the equation and just not the performance..

jacflash

Oh, c'mon. You know full well what is meant -- and you OUGHT to know full well that putting the engine behind the driver will change the handling dynamics, BIGTIME, compared to the current not-really-mid-engined-except-by-obtuse-and-functionally-meaningless-definitions layout. You want to throw around jargon? Here's some for you: LOW POLAR MOMENT OF INERTIA. That means it changes direction wicked fast. Coolest thing ever, if you know how to handle it. A quick trip into the guardrail if you don't. The current layout -- by pushing the engine and trans to opposite edges of the inside-the-axles envelope -- greatly mutes this tendency. Concentrating the mass closer to the car's center would enhance it.

I would love to see a proper mid-engined Vette. Personally, I think it would be the greatest thing ever, and I'll buy the first manual-trans example I see and spend the next several years scaring the crap out of the local Ferraristi. But I don't know if it's a good idea to be selling 'em to the Joe Fatbutts who still make up a dismayingly large percentage of Vette buyers, even if they lard it up with electronic nannies.

LTC Z06

Why put words in my mouth, just read what I wrote.